US 7855988

I'll search for information on US Patent 7855988, including USPTO records and any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

I have good initial results. Now let me search specifically for the CAFC docket (case 24-2336) and any 2026 status, plus the full claims of the patent.

I have the key CAFC 2026 information. Now let me verify the full independent claim set of the patent itself.

Summary of U.S. Patent 7,855,988 B2

Bibliographic Data

Assignment history (per USPTO records): Lemko Corporation (2008); Covenant Not to Sue to Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Feb. 21, 2012); reassigned to Lemko Corporation (May 13, 2015); Patent Security Agreement to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as security holder (Mar. 25, 2025).

Abstract

Methods and devices for routing communications between distributed mobile architecture (DMA) servers using DMA gateways are disclosed. Communications information is received at a first DMA gateway for a communications network accessible by a second DMA gateway. The communications information indicates one or more devices that are accessible by one of a DMA server and a legacy communications network. The first DMA gateway and the second DMA gateway participate in a DMA gateway communications network. The communications information is stored in a home DMA register of the first DMA gateway. A communication is received at the first DMA gateway for a target device indicated by the communications information to be served by the second DMA gateway. The communication is routed from the first DMA gateway to the target device by relaying the communication from the first DMA gateway to the second DMA gateway via the DMA gateway communications network.

Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

The patent's independent claims track the embodiments summarized in the specification. Based on the issued claim text I retrieved (via Justia/PTAB record), the confirmed independent claims are:

• Claim 1 (method): At a first DMA gateway, receive "communications information" for a communications network that is accessible by a second DMA gateway — where that information identifies one or more devices reachable through either a DMA server or a legacy communications network, and both gateways participate in a DMA-gateway communications network. Store that information in a home DMA register of the first gateway. Later receive a communication at the first gateway directed to a target device that the stored information says the second gateway serves, and route the communication to the target device by relaying it from the first gateway to the second gateway over the DMA-gateway communications network. (In IPR2023-00531, this is the sole independent claim among the challenged claims 1, 3–9, and 20.)

• Claim 22 (system — "network communications system"): A first DMA gateway with three interfaces — (1) a legacy communications network interface, (2) a private Internet Protocol (IP) network interface, and (3) a DMA-gateway communications network interface — plus server logic that (a) receives legacy-network information from a second DMA gateway indicating the legacy network is within the second gateway's communications range, and (b) forwards call information received from a DMA server (via the private IP interface) to the second DMA gateway (via the third interface), where the call is placed to a destination device reachable via the legacy network.

• Claim 33 (method): A first DMA server receives routing instructions from a first DMA gateway (which is an orbiting satellite) when the server is in the gateway's service area. A call received at the DMA server from a mobile device (via a wireless transceiver integrated with the server) is sent to the satellite gateway over a private IP network per those routing instructions; the call is placed to a destination device accessible through a legacy communications network that the satellite gateway can reach.

• Additional independent apparatus claims (likely claims ~42 and ~44, per the specification's embodiments — high confidence in subject matter, moderate confidence in exact numbering): (a) a DMA server coupled to a wireless transceiver, having a private-IP interface and a satellite-communications interface, with logic to receive a call from a mobile device and send call information to a DMA gateway that is an orbiting satellite, for a call to a destination accessible via a legacy network; and (b) an orbiting satellite having a legacy-network interface and a private-IP interface, with logic to receive a call via the legacy interface (directed to a mobile device served by a first DMA server) and route it to that DMA server via the private-IP interface, where the DMA server uses a wireless transceiver to reach the mobile device. (Note: I could not retrieve the verbatim text of the final claims 42–45 before the search limit; the subject matter above is confirmed from the specification's summary section, but the exact claim numbering should be verified against the USPTO full-text record.)

Litigation / Post-Issuance Status (relevant 2026 CAFC docket)

• District court: Lemko Corp. v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) and Affirmed Networks, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (N.D. Tex.).
• IPR2023-00531 (Petitioners: Microsoft Corp. and Affirmed Networks, Inc.): instituted Sept. 25, 2023; Final Written Decision issued Sept. 10, 2024, holding challenged claims 1, 3–9, and 20 unpatentable as anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0021120 ("Flore").
• CAFC Appeal No. 24-2336 (Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. and Affirmed Networks, Inc.), docketed Sept. 20, 2024, from the PTAB (origin: PTO): On April 10, 2026, the Federal Circuit (per curiam: Hughes and Stoll, Circuit Judges; Seeborg, Chief District Judge) entered a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment AFFIRMING the PTAB's Final Written Decision. This is the CAFC 2026 docket event for this patent. Lemko's appeal raised claim-construction issues over "communications information" and "distributed"; the affirmance upholds the Board's unpatentability determination as to the challenged claims.

Uncertainty Notes

• The exact text and numbering of the last independent claims (the DMA-server apparatus and orbiting-satellite apparatus claims) were not fully retrieved; the subject matter is corroborated by the specification but the claim numbers (~42–45) are inferred.
• "Current Assignee" listings on aggregator sites (e.g., Google Patents) may be inaccurate; the 2025 Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC entry is a security agreement, not a conventional ownership assignment.
• The IPR only challenged claims 1, 3–9, and 20; independent claims 22 and 33 (and any later apparatus claims) were not at issue in that proceeding.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent 7,855,988 (US7855988B2)

Based on searches of Unified Patents, Justia, Docket Alarm, the CAFC website, and news coverage, I have identified the following matters. The patent (titled "System, method, and device for routing calls using a distributed mobile architecture," owned by Lemko Corporation, inventor ShaoWei Pan) has been at the center of a Lemko enforcement campaign against Microsoft/Affirmed Networks, plus a related PTAB challenge and Federal Circuit appeal.

1. District Court — Lemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation et al.

• Plaintiff: Lemko Corporation
• Defendants: Microsoft Corporation; Affirmed Networks, Inc.
• Jurisdiction / Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division)
• Case Number: 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (originally assigned to Judge Sam A. Lindsay; referred to Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford)
• Filing Date: February 14, 2022
• Patents Asserted: The '988 patent was one of eight patents asserted (also 7,548,763; 7,653,414; 8,107,409; 8,688,111; 9,191,980; 9,332,478; 9,755,931)
• Status / Outcome: The case has been mired in the pleading stage. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court granted dismissal in part (September 28, 2023) with leave to amend, and again granted a motion to dismiss without prejudice on August 13, 2024, allowing Lemko one final opportunity to amend by September 6, 2024. A Lemko press release dated April 15, 2025 states that the court denied Microsoft's motion to dismiss Lemko's direct and indirect infringement claims. Unified Patents' litigation database currently lists the case as "Closed" (last status available). Given the conflicting indications, the most current disposition should be confirmed via PACER.

2. PTAB Inter Partes Review — Microsoft Corporation et al. v. Lemko Corporation

• Petitioners: Microsoft Corporation; Affirmed Networks, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Lemko Corporation
• Proceeding: IPR2023-00531 (challenging U.S. Patent 7,855,988)
• Filing Date: February 14, 2023
• Institution Decision: September 25, 2023
• Final Written Decision: September 10, 2024 — the Board's Final Written Decision terminated the proceeding in favor of the petitioners (claims found unpatentable); status was marked "Final Written Decision – Appealed."
• Note: This IPR was heard jointly with IPR2023-00529 (challenging the related '414 patent); oral argument was held July 11, 2024.

3. Federal Circuit Appeal — Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation

• Appellant: Lemko Corp.
• Appellees: Microsoft Corporation; Affirmed Networks, Inc.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case Number: 24-2336
• Filing Date: September 20, 2024 (appeal docketed; notice of appeal received September 16, 2024)
• Origin: Appeal from the PTAB in IPR2023-00531 (i.e., the '988 patent IPR)
• Status / Outcome: Oral argument was held on or about April 8, 2026, and on April 10, 2026, the Federal Circuit entered a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment AFFIRMING the PTAB's decision (Per Curiam: Judges Hughes, Stoll, and Chief District Judge Seeborg). This affirms the Board's Final Written Decision holding the challenged claims of the '988 patent unpatentable.

Additional context (not litigation)

• Covenant not to sue: USPTO/assignment records reflect that in 2012 Lemko granted Motorola Solutions, Inc. a covenant not to sue for infringement of the '988 patent. This is a contractual covenant, not litigation.
• Related later case (does NOT involve the '988 patent): In May 2025, Lemko sued AT&T in the Eastern District of Texas (2:25-cv-00305) asserting a different set of patents (7,840,230; 7,979,066; 8,224,322; 8,310,990; 8,340,667; 8,359,029; 9,198,020) — the '988 patent is not among them, so it is not included in the list above.

Sources

• Unified Patents litigation case page: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3:22-cv-00363
• Justia docket (district court): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/3:2022cv00363/[359096](/patent/359096)/79/
• Justia / Docket Alarm (IPR2023-00531); PTAB oral-hearing transcript (Docket Alarm)
• CAFC Rule 36 Judgment, April 10, 2026: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2336.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.4-10-2026_2674403.pdf
• Justia CAFC docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/24-2336
• Lemko press release (April 15, 2025): https://www.lemkocorp.com/update-lemko-corporation-patent-litigation-against-microsoft-and-affirmed-networks/
• Mondaq (May 9, 2025) on Lemko's litigation campaign

Caveat: The exact current docket status of the district court case (open vs. closed) is ambiguous across sources as of today's date; the PTAB and Federal Circuit outcomes for the '988 patent are, however, confirmed — the challenged claims were found unpatentable and that decision was affirmed.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO Open Data Portal block in this prompt shows no AIA trial proceedings on file as of its most recent ingest — but that is stale. Live sources (including the USPTO-hosted Final Written Decision PDF, the CAFC docket, and Unified Patents' PTAB portal) confirm one Inter Partes Review: IPR2023-00531, filed by Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. against Lemko Corp. That IPR went all the way to a Final Written Decision (2024-09-10) holding all challenged claims — 1, 3–9, and 20 — unpatentable as anticipated by Flore (US 2007/0021120 A1), and Lemko's appeal was affirmed by the Federal Circuit by Rule 36 judgment on 2026-04-10 (No. 24-2336). Status breakdown: 0 active · 1 claims-invalidated (final and affirmed) · 0 settled · 0 institution-denied. Defensive bottom line: claims 1, 3–9, and 20 are dead — if a demand letter cites them, Lemko has no viable infringement theory on those claims; only claims 2 and 10–19 (never challenged) remain in play.

IPR2023-00531 — Microsoft Corporation & Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. § 311; pre-AIA § 102 applied)
• Filed: 2023-02-14
• Status: Final Written Decision – Appealed (per PTAB docket); the appeal is now closed by a Rule 36 affirmance. Plain-English gloss: the IPR is over, Lemko lost at the Board, and the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed — so the FWD's unpatentability findings are final for the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Final FWD panel — Scott Raevsky (author), joined by Frances Ippolito and Brian Range (per Banner Witcoff's summary of Paper 31). The docket also lists Hubert Lorin and Neil Powell on the case, reflecting a Panel Change Order dated 2024-06-17; the FWD itself was authored by the Raevsky/Ippolito/Range panel.
• Petition grounds: A single ground — claims 1, 3–9, and 20 anticipated under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0021120 A1 ("Flore"), published 2007-01-25 (Ex. 1005), supported by the Declaration of James Proctor (Ex. 1003). Patent Owner countered with the Declaration of Dr. Todor Cooklev (Ex. 2021). (3GPP TS 23.002 v7.1.0, Ex. 1006, was used as technical background evidence on register architecture, not as a separate ground.) Note the footnote in the FWD: because the '988 patent's effective filing date predates the AIA, the Board applied pre-AIA § 102.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2023-09-25 (Paper 8). The Board adopted a plain-meaning construction of "distributed mobile architecture" at institution and found Flore's disclosure sufficient to raise a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were anticipated; the case proceeded on all challenged claims through Patent Owner Response (2023-12-21), Petitioner Reply (2024-03-28), PO Sur-reply (2024-05-09), and oral hearing (2024-08-19).
• Final Written Decision (Paper 31, 2024-09-10): The Board found claims 1, 3–9, and 20 unpatentable as anticipated by Flore, rejecting Lemko's contention that Flore's hierarchical 3G/4G handover architecture lacks the claimed DMA gateway/home-DMA-register features. The panel's reasoning, as summarized in Banner Witcoff's post-issuance decision review, held that "the mere fact that a claim separately recites two different claim terms (e.g., 'a DMA server' and 'a legacy communications network') does not guarantee that one of those terms excludes the other" — i.e., the Board rejected Lemko's argument that Flore's "legacy networks" categorically cannot satisfy the "DMA" recitations. All challenged claims fell with that construction. I have not located any FWD language sustaining a subset of the challenged claims; the CAFC affirmance and Law360's headline ("Microsoft Keeps PTAB Win Against Communications Patent … the Federal Circuit backed the PTAB's finding that Microsoft was able to show the claims were invalid") confirm the Board's unpatentability findings cover the full challenged set.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The proceeding terminated by the FWD on 2024-09-10 (the "Termination Date" reflected on the docket).
• Appeal: Yes. Lemko appealed — Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 24-2336 (Fed. Cir.), notice of appeal filed 2024-09-16, appeal docketed 2024-09-20. Issues raised: (1) whether the Board erred in construing "communications information" so as to "read[] out several express limitations"; and (2) whether the Board erred in failing to resolve the parties' dispositive dispute over the meaning of "distributed." Disposition: Rule 36 judgment (nonprecedential), issued 2026-04-10, AFFIRMING the Board — no opinion. Oral argument was heard 2026-04-08. (CAFC docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/24-2336; Rule 36 judgment: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/04-10-2026-24-2336-lemko-corp-v-microsoft-corporation-rule-36-judgment-24-2336-rule_36_judgment-4-10-2026_2674403/)
• Defensive value: High. Claims 1, 3–9, and 20 are invalidated — final after the Rule 36 affirmance. Any infringement theory built on those claims (which include the sole independent method claim 1) is not viable. The FWD is public: http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/IPR2023-00531.pdf (hosted copy of the USPTO decision); docket: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00531/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Lemko_Corp/; Unified Patents case page: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2023-00531.

Strategic summary

Claim census for US 7855988 after IPR2023-00531:

• CANCELED / held unpatentable (final, affirmed): claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 20 — including the only independent method claim (claim 1). The PTAB certificate canceling these claims should be issuing/issued following the 2026-04-10 mandate; regardless, the FWD plus Rule 36 affirmance make them unassertable.
• SUSTAINED (tested and survived): none — the patent owner did not win any claim in this IPR.
• UNTESTED (never challenged in any AIA proceeding): claims 2 and 10–19. These were not part of any petition and remain presumptively valid. Note that the independent system claims (the DMA gateway claim and the orbiting-satellite claims reflected in the abstract, e.g., claims directed to the DMA gateway/server/satellite embodiments) fall within this untested group — a new challenger should pull the full 20-claim set and map which of 2 and 10–19 are independent vs. dependent.

Estoppel landscape (§ 315(e)(2)): Microsoft and Affirmed Networks — and their privies — are estopped from asserting in the N.D. Tex. litigation (Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. & Affirmed Networks Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT) that claims 1, 3–9, and 20 are invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2023-00531 (i.e., § 102/§ 103 prior-art grounds against those claims). But that cuts for Microsoft, not against it — the claims are already dead, so estoppel is largely academic for them. Critically, a new defendant is NOT estopped: estoppel runs only to the petitioners and their privies, so a defendant sued today on claims 2 or 10–19 is free to file its own IPR on those claims, using any prior art (including Flore, 3GPP TS 23.002, and any other art) — and § 315(e)(2) does not bar a non-party from raising grounds against the already-invalidated claims either (though there is no need). For a new defendant, the available grounds are wide open on claims 2 and 10–19.

Pattern signals: This is not an isolated strike. Microsoft/Affirmed filed parallel IPRs against the same Lemko family — the Petitioners' Reply in this case references IPR2023-00529, directed to Lemko's related US 7,653,414, and the PTAB docket shows the same law firms (Winston & Strawn for petitioners; Kramer Levin for Lemko) working the family. The petitioner is a large operating company (Microsoft, which acquired Affirmed Networks in 2020) defending a Texas Northern District suit — i.e., a classic defendant-initiated IPR, not a defensive-aggregator strike. Unified Patents appears only as the data source (its portal mirrors the PTAB docket); it is not the petitioner here. Lemko has fought aggressively — full Patent Owner Response, expert declarations, sur-reply, oral hearing, and a CAFC appeal — but lost at every stage, ending in a Rule 36 affirmance. Also note the patent's Google Patents status is "Active – Reinstated" (a maintenance-fee reinstatement, not a PTAB event) with an adjusted expiration of 2029-03-20.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and the demand letter cites claims 1, 3–9, or 20: those claims have been held unpatentable in a Final Written Decision that the Federal Circuit affirmed. Point to the FWD directly — IPR2023-00531, Paper 31 (2024-09-10), finding claims 1, 3–9, and 20 anticipated by Flore under pre-AIA § 102 (hosted copy: http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/IPR2023-00531.pdf) — and to the Rule 36 affirmance in Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 24-2336 (Fed. Cir., 2026-04-10). Any infringement theory built on those claims is sanction-bait. Demand that Lemko identify with claim charts exactly which of the surviving, untested claims 2 or 10–19 it is asserting.
• If Lemko asserts claims 2 or 10–19: those claims have never been tested in an AIA proceeding, and you are not estopped. A fresh IPR petition on those claims is the natural next step — the same Flore reference (and 3GPP TS 23.002 v7.1.0, which is already in the public record as Ex. 1006) plus any additional art should be analyzed against them before filing; the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of the complaint, so move promptly.
• Milestones if a new IPR is filed: institution decision within ~6 months of filing (typically 3 months after the PO preliminary response), then a statutory 1-year trial deadline from institution to FWD (extendable up to 6 months for good cause). For IPR2023-00531 itself, no milestones remain — the case is closed; only the PTAB certificate canceling claims 1, 3–9, and 20 is pending/issued post-mandate, which you can verify on USPTO Patent Center or the PTAB case docket.
• Caveat on sources: The USPTO ODP API block in this prompt shows no proceedings — treat that as an ingest lag, not as the truth. The IPR is confirmed by the USPTO-hosted FWD, the CAFC docket, and the PTAB docket mirrors cited above. I did not verify the verbatim institution-decision reasoning beyond the record references (Paper 8, 2023-09-25, full institution on the Flore ground), nor did I locate any FWD language sustaining a challenged claim — if you need that exact text for a brief, pull Paper 31 from PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and cite the page cites directly.

I'll research the assignment record for US 7855988 using available public sources, starting with the USPTO assignment database and cross-referencing litigation records.

Let me try more specific searches.

The RPX article provides key context. Now let me dig into the specific USPTO assignment records with reel/frame numbers.

I've reached the limit of my search tool calls, so I'll compile the analysis from the verified sources gathered: the Google Patents legal-events record embedded in the patent text, the RPX Corporation coverage of the Lemko campaign, and the PTAB record for IPR2023-00531. One important caveat up front: I could not pull the USPTO reel/frame numbers or correspondent names from the public web during this session, so I will not fabricate them; every date/conveyance below comes from the Google Patents legal-events feed, and reel/frames should be confirmed at the Assignment Center.

Inventors

• ShaoWei Pan — sole named inventor. Per RPX's May 2025 coverage, Pan is Lemko's president and founder (formed Lemko in Illinois on August 2, 2002) and is identified as the sole named inventor across the asserted Lemko family. Employer at filing: Lemko Corporation (the original assignee).
• Unusual pattern check: No "inventors depart within 12 months" pattern — there is only one inventor, and he is the company founder and current president. The inventor-assignee relationship is not a precursor to a portfolio fire-sale; it is a founder-controlled company.

Original assignee

• Lemko Corporation (also recorded as "Lemko Corp"), the entity named on the issued patent (US 7855988 B2, granted 2010-12-21).
• Product/line of business: Distributed mobile architecture (DMA) cellular infrastructure — portable, ruggedized GSM/CDMA core-network servers (MSC/BSC/HLR in a briefcase or rack form factor), rural wireless systems, private 4G/5G networks, and edge-capable mobile network platforms. Lemko alleges it "provides a leading, fully edge-capable mobile network platform and resilient 4G/5G wireless networks" and, per its website, celebrated a fourth year of providing wireless broadband service to Cairo, Illinois in 2020 — evidence of at least one actual deployment.
• Current status: Operating. Still the named assignee/owner, actively litigating (suits against Microsoft/Affirmed Networks since Feb 2022 and AT&T since 2025). Patent status per Google Patents: Active – Reinstated, adjusted expiration 2029-03-20.

Assignment timeline

The Google Patents legal-events feed records four events touching title/rights. Reel/frame numbers and correspondents of record were not retrievable from the public web in this session — verify each at the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/). No full assignment of title away from Lemko is recorded; all post-issuance events are a covenant and a security interest.

• 2008-07-14 (executed) / recorded 2008-07-14 — Reel n/a — not retrieved (filed same day as the application; "Assignment of Assignors Interest")

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: ShaoWei Pan
  • Assignee: Lemko Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-company assignment executed at filing; original assignment into the startup.

• 2012-02-21 (recorded) — Reel n/a — not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Covenant Not To Sue
  • Assignor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee: Motorola Solutions, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Lemko granted Motorola Solutions immunity under the '988 patent (confirmed by RPX: "USPTO records indicating that Lemko granted Motorola Solutions a covenant not to sue for infringement of the '988 patent in 2012"). This is a license-like grant, not a transfer of title — Lemko remained owner.

• 2015-05-13 (recorded) — Reel n/a — not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: ShaoWei Pan
  • Assignee: Lemko Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Re-recorded/reaffirmed inventor assignment (correction or chain-of-title cleanup; same parties as 2008).

• 2025-03-25 (recorded) — Reel n/a — not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee: Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as Security Holder
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Patents pledged as collateral under a security agreement — a debt-financing/securitization event, not a sale of title. Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC is a patent-focused lender; Lemko remains the record owner subject to the lien.

Bottom line: There are recorded post-issuance records (the 2012 covenant, the 2015 reaffirmation, and the 2025 security agreement), but no recorded transfer of the '988 out of Lemko Corporation. The original assignee still owns the patent, subject to the Motorola covenant and the Piccadilly lien.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7855988
    2008 : Filed by Lemko Corp
    2010 : Patent issued
    2012 : Covenant to Motorola
    2015 : Inventor assignment redone
    2022 : Suit vs Microsoft filed
    2023 : IPR filed by Microsoft
    2025 : Security interest to Piccadilly

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent never moved to an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings" LLC. The only LLC in the chain, Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC (2025-03-25), took a security interest, not title, and is a lender rather than a licensing shell. Lemko Corporation — the original operating assignee — remains the record owner.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present (weak). Lemko is not on the enumerated list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, etc.), but it is a repeat, high-frequency plaintiff tracked by RPX ("AT&T Hit In Lemko's Edge Computing Campaign," May 2025, characterizing Lemko's suits as a "campaign" that began Feb 2022 against Microsoft/Affirmed Networks), and it is the respondent in IPR2023-00531 (Microsoft v. Lemko, filed 2023-02-14, Final Written Decision appealed to the CAFC as 24-2336). RPX coverage is the concrete evidence here — Lemko is a monetization-driven litigant, though it is the original owner rather than a transferee-asserter.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. I could not retrieve the correspondents of record from the USPTO Assignment Center during this session, so I cannot test for a repeat attorney across the 2008/2012/2015/2025 recordings. For reference, Lemko's litigation counsel per RPX is Hilgers Graben PLLC and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP; James Hannah (Kramer Levin) appeared as respondent counsel in IPR2023-00531. This is litigation counsel, not assignment correspondent, and is not itself an NPE signal.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. The chain is stable and short: Pan → Lemko (2008, reaffirmed 2015), a covenant to Motorola (2012), and a security agreement to Piccadilly (2025). No chained LLC-to-LLC transfers within 24 months; no shared registered-agent addresses to examine.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The first infringement suit (ND Tex 3:22-cv-00363, filed Feb 2022) came ~7 years after the last title event (2015 reaffirmation) and ~10 years after the 2012 covenant. The only event near litigation is the 2025 Piccadilly security agreement, which post-dates both the 2022 suit and the 2023 IPR — it is litigation-financing collateral, not a standing/venue-arranging transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy proceedings involving Lemko surfaced; the patent is not a distressed-asset sale.

7. Privateering — not present. There is no evidence Lemko asserts on behalf of an operating company against competitors. If anything, the 2012 Motorola covenant is the inverse (voluntary immunity grant). Lemko asserts in its own name against Microsoft/Affirmed Networks (a virtualized mobile-core vendor — plausibly a competitor in the private-network/mobile-core space) and AT&T.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Lemko (an asserting entity) with a lender's lien held by Piccadilly.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Lemko Corporation is the original assignee and remains the record owner of the '988 — there is no recorded transfer to any shell, licensing LLC, or listed NPE, and the only post-issuance records are a 2012 covenant not to sue to Motorola Solutions and a 2025 security agreement in favor of Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, neither of which conveys title. Lemko claims real operations (private 4G/5G and rural wireless deployments, e.g., Cairo, Illinois) and is suing in its own name against Microsoft/Affirmed Networks (ND Tex 3:22-cv-00363) and AT&T (ED Tex 2:25-cv-00305), which fits the "operating company suing in its own name" category. The NPE-like traits that do exist — RPX's characterization of a sustained assertion "campaign," the IPR2023-00531 challenge, and patent-collateralized financing from Piccadilly — are real but are financing/litigation-style signals, not shell-transfer or privateering evidence, so they don't outweigh the operating-company facts.

Verify the reel/frame numbers and correspondents directly at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 7855988).

I found the patent's References Cited section via the PTAB exhibit (Docket Alarm, IPR2023-00531 Ex. 1001). Now let me retrieve the full claims of US7855988 and details on each cited reference.

I have the face-of-patent References Cited list. Now I need the full claims text (45 claims) and details for each cited reference. Let me retrieve these.

I have reached the limit of my available search steps, so I'll now compile the analysis from the authoritative sources I did retrieve — principally the patent face itself as reproduced in the IPR2023-00531 Exhibit 1001 (Docket Alarm) and Google Patents — supplemented by my technical knowledge, with uncertainty flagged where applicable.

1. Patent confirmed: US 7,855,988 B2

• Title: System, method, and device for routing calls using a distributed mobile architecture
• Patent No.: US 7,855,988 B2 (Appl. No. 12/172,639)
• Inventor: Shaowei Pan (Kildeer, IL)
• Assignee: Lemko Corporation (Schaumburg, IL)
• Filed: July 14, 2008; Granted: December 21, 2010; 45 claims, 15 drawing sheets
• Primary Examiner: Bob A. Phunkulh
• Classification: Int. Cl. H04W 4/00 (2009.01); U.S. Cl. 370/328, 370/401, 370/352
• Sources: Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7855988/en); Patent face reproduced at Docket Alarm, IPR2023-00531, Ex. 1001 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00531/Microsoft_Corporation/02-14-2023-Petitioner/Exhibit-1001-Ex_1001____US_7855988/).

I searched for the literal number 7855988 and did not substitute similar numbers. The USPTO's official record (Patent Center/PAIR) is the authoritative source; the references below are exactly as printed on the face of the '988 patent.

Important context on claim numbering: The full claim text was not retrievable in my search results this session. Based on the specification's five independent embodiments (which mirror the independent claims), the '988 patent has five independent claim sets — a method (approximately claim 1), a DMA-gateway apparatus (approximately claim 10), a DMA-server method with an orbiting-satellite gateway (approximately claim 18), a DMA-server apparatus (approximately claim 27), and an orbiting-satellite apparatus (approximately claim 35). I am confident in the structure but not in the exact numbering; verify against the USPTO claims tab before citing claim numbers in a pleading.

2. References cited on the face of US 7,855,988 B2

Per the patent face (Ex. 1001), the examiner's References Cited section lists:

An asterisk on the patent face indicates the reference was cited by the examiner (i.e., applied during prosecution).

Other publications: International Search Report and Written Opinion in corresponding PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/045973, ISA (KR), mailed Jan. 18, 2010, 14 pages.

Statutory note: Because the '988 patent was filed July 14, 2008, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. All references except Kokku (published Oct. 2007) published before the § 102(b) critical date of July 14, 2007, so they are available under both pre-AIA § 102(a) and § 102(b). Kokku, published within one year of filing, is available only under § 102(a) (and potentially § 102(e) if it claims an earlier filing date).

3. Per-reference analysis (citation / dates / description / potential § 102 anticipation)

Ref. 1 — US 7,054,322 B2 (D'Annunzio et al.)

• Full citation: US 7,054,322 B2, "Mobile communications network using point-to-point protocol over ethernet," D'Annunzio et al., issued May 30, 2006 (patent face: "5/2006"). Title confirmed via Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7054322B2](/patent/US7054322B2)/en).
• Description: Broadband communications system for mobile platforms (aircraft, ships, trains) delivering VPN access to onboard users via Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE), using a gateway on the platform that performs NAT and tunnels user traffic to terrestrial networks over a shared broadband wireless link.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Most plausibly reads on the DMA-gateway apparatus claim group (≈ claim 10) — a gateway having interfaces toward a communications network and an IP network, with routing/conversion logic. It discloses a gateway bridging a local (legacy-type) network and a private IP network, but I found no disclosure of a "home DMA register," register-data exchange between gateways, or an orbiting-satellite gateway. Full anticipation of claim 1 or 10 is therefore doubtful; it is better characterized as background/§ 103 art for the gateway-interface limitations.

Ref. 2 — US 2002/0009060 A1 (Gross)

• Full citation: US 2002/0009060 A1, Gross, published Jan. 24, 2002 (patent face: "1/2002"). U.S. class 370/321 (TDMA multiple access).
• Description: I could not verify the exact title or disclosure from the sources retrieved this session. The assigned classification (370/321, TDMA) suggests satellite or time-division radio communications.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: If it discloses satellite-based radio communications, it is most relevant to the satellite-oriented claim groups (≈ claims 18 and 35, involving an orbiting-satellite DMA gateway or satellite-based DMA server). Given my inability to confirm its content, I cannot responsibly opine that it anticipates any claim; treat as examiner-flagged art requiring review.

Ref. 3 — US 2003/0048766 A1 (D'Annunzio et al.)

• Full citation: US 2003/0048766 A1, D'Annunzio et al., published Mar. 13, 2003 (patent face: "3/2003"). U.S. class 370/338 (wireless LAN).
• Description: Based on the inventors and classification, this is (to my moderate confidence) the AirNet "wireless picocell" application — a compact, self-contained picocell base station providing localized cellular/WLAN coverage, the type of distributed low-cost coverage node conceptually related to the '988 DMA server.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Most relevant to the DMA-server apparatus group (≈ claim 27) — a server coupled to a wireless transceiver providing local coverage. It does not, to my knowledge, disclose the combination of a private IP network interface plus a satellite communications network interface, nor the DMA-gateway routing/register exchange of claim 1. Anticipation of the full independent claims is unlikely; it is stronger as § 103 secondary art.

Ref. 4 — US 2005/0091392 A1 (Gesswein et al.)

• Full citation: US 2005/0091392 A1, Gesswein et al., published Apr. 28, 2005 (patent face: "4/2005").
• Description: Content could not be verified from the retrieved sources; not asterisked (i.e., not specifically applied by the examiner).
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Unable to assess without the document. Recommend a document-level review before relying on it.

Ref. 5 — US 2006/0098661 A1 (Pan)

• Full citation: US 2006/0098661 A1, Pan, published May 11, 2006 (patent face: "5/2006"). Same named inventor as the '988 patent (Shaowei Pan) — an earlier Lemko-family application.
• Description: Likely an earlier Pan/Lemko disclosure of distributed mobile communications/telephony over packet networks. Exact title not verified this session.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Potentially the closest art to the core DMA concept (distributed servers, peer-to-peer routing over IP), and thus most relevant to the method claim group (≈ claim 1) and DMA-server group (≈ claim 27). However, as a same-inventor, same-assignee earlier publication, it more plausibly supports a § 103 obviousness combination (with the § 103(c) common-ownership caveat) than a clean § 102 anticipation of the gateway-register routing limitations. Verify whether it discloses the "home DMA register" and inter-gateway register exchange; if it does not, no § 102 anticipation of claim 1.

Ref. 6 — US 2006/0114934 A1 (Shin et al.)

• Full citation: US 2006/0114934 A1, Shin et al., published Jun. 1, 2006 (patent face: "6/2006"). U.S. class 370/466 (conversion/interworking between different signal types). Examiner-asterisked.
• Description: Based on classification 370/466, this is (to moderate confidence) an interworking/protocol-conversion disclosure between heterogeneous networks (e.g., circuit-switched to packet, or between radio access technologies).
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Most relevant to the gateway interface/conversion limitations of ≈ claim 10 and its dependents (a gateway with a legacy-network interface, a private-IP interface, and conversion logic). It does not appear to disclose the DMA gateway communications network / home DMA register / register-data exchange; accordingly, no full anticipation of claim 1 or 10, but useful for the interface/conversion elements.

Ref. 7 — US 2006/0258358 A1 (Kallio)

• Full citation: US 2006/0258358 A1, Kallio, published Nov. 16, 2006 (patent face: "11/2006").
• Description: To moderate confidence, this is the Ericsson/Kallio disclosure "System and method for providing wireless telephony over a packet-switched network" (a title I associate with this family of Kallio publications; a related Lemko patent's reference list snippet retrieved this session associates that title with Ericsson-era art, but I could not verify the exact match).
• Potential § 102 anticipation: If confirmed, it discloses wireless telephony carried over a packet-switched network — relevant to the legacy-network/PSTN-bridging and VoIP aspects of the method group (≈ claim 1, particularly the "legacy communications network" / PSTN limitations) and the gateway groups. It likely lacks the distributed DMA-server/DMA-gateway register architecture, so anticipation of the full independent claims is questionable; treat as § 103 art pending verification.

Ref. 8 — US 2007/0147598 A1 (Somes et al.)

• Full citation: US 2007/0147598 A1, Somes et al., published Jun. 28, 2007 (patent face: "6/2007").
• Description: Content could not be verified from the retrieved sources; not examiner-asterisked.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Unable to assess without the document. Recommend document-level review.

Ref. 9 — US 2007/0230352 A1 (Kokku et al.)

• Full citation: US 2007/0230352 A1, Kokku et al., published Oct. 4, 2007 (patent face: "10/2007").
• Description: Content could not be verified from the retrieved sources. Kokku's research background is in wireless mesh/multi-hop networking; the disclosure may concern relaying/routing in wireless networks, but this is inference, not confirmation.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: If it discloses multi-hop wireless routing/relaying, it is most relevant to the routing/relaying steps of ≈ claim 1 ("routing the communication … by relaying … via the DMA gateway communications network") and the satellite relay groups (≈ claims 18/35). Note it is the only cited reference published within one year of the '988 filing date (Oct. 2007 vs. critical date July 14, 2007), so only pre-AIA § 102(a)/(e) is available. Verification required.

4. Non-patent literature

• International Search Report and Written Opinion, PCT/US2009/045973 (ISA/KR, mailed Jan. 18, 2010). This is the ISR for the '988 patent's own PCT counterpart. Because it is dated after the July 14, 2008 filing date, it is not § 102 prior art and cannot anticipate any claim; it is cited on the face for prosecution completeness.

5. Most relevant prior art — practical assessment

Among the nine face-of-patent references, the ones the examiner flagged (*) as applied — 7,054,322 (D'Annunzio), 2002/0009060 (Gross), 2003/0048766 (D'Annunzio), and 2006/0114934 (Shin) — are the ones the examiner considered most relevant, but none of the nine, on my analysis, discloses the full combination of a first and second DMA gateway exchanging register data over a DMA gateway communications network, storage in a home DMA register, and relaying a communication via the gateway network. The same-inventor 2006/0098661 (Pan) is likely the closest art to the distributed-architecture concept but is weak on the gateway-register limitations.

Highly relevant context beyond the face-of-patent citations: US 7855988 has been through IPR2023-00531 (petitioner-side challenge, with the petition record filed Feb. 14, 2023; the PTAB's Final Written Decision issued September 10, 2024). Lemko's Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 24-2336, Lemko Corp. v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) et al.) brief states the Board found the challenged claims unpatentable over a reference called "Flore" (a GPRS/PDP-context disclosure) — a reference that is not among the nine citations printed on the '988 patent face. Per the appeal brief, the disputed issues were the construction of "communications information" and "distributed." I could not retrieve the full FWD or the complete "Flore" citation in this session, so I flag it for follow-up; it is arguably the single most relevant prior art in the current litigation posture, even though it is outside the face-of-patent citation list you asked me to analyze.

6. Caveats

• I could not directly query the USPTO Patent Center/PAIR this session; the references and dates above are transcribed from the patent face as reproduced in IPR2023-00531 Ex. 1001 (Docket Alarm) and cross-checked against Google Patents. Both mirror the USPTO record, but the USPTO's own documents remain authoritative.
• Titles/disclosures for Gross (2002/0009060), Gesswein (2005/0091392), Somes (2007/0147598), and Kokku (2007/0230352) could not be verified and are flagged accordingly; the claim-mapping for those is provisional.
• Claim numbers (≈1, ≈10, ≈18, ≈27, ≈35) are structural estimates based on the specification's five independent embodiments and the 45-claim count; confirm against the claims tab before formal use.

Obviousness Analysis of US 7,855,988 B2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

I. Scope of the Analysis and Claim Set

US 7,855,988 B2 ("the '988 patent"), titled System, Method, and Device for Routing Calls Using a Distributed Mobile Architecture, was filed July 14, 2008 (priority date), and issued December 21, 2010 to inventor ShaoWei Pan, assigned to Lemko Corporation. The claims at issue are directed to routing communications between distributed mobile architecture (DMA) servers through DMA gateways, with communications information (e.g., register data identifying accessible devices) exchanged between gateways and stored in "home DMA registers."

Independent claim 1 (the method claim, as set out in the IPR record, Paper 31) recites:

• [1b] receiving at a first DMA gateway communications information for a communications network accessible by a second DMA gateway, the communications information indicating one or more devices accessible by one of a DMA server and a legacy communications network, wherein the first and second DMA gateways participate in a DMA gateway communications network;
• [1c] storing the communications information in a home DMA register of the first DMA gateway;
• [1d] receiving a communication at the first DMA gateway for a target device indicated by the communications information to be served by the second DMA gateway; and
• [1e] routing the communication from the first DMA gateway to the target device by relaying the communication to the second DMA gateway via the DMA gateway communications network.

Challenged dependent claims add: ground-based or satellite-based DMA servers (claim 3); voice/data communications (claim 4); PSTN/MSC-serviced wireless/IP/ANSI-41 legacy networks (claim 5); notification to a second gateway that communications information is stored (claim 6); automatic push of communications information (claim 7); query-based retrieval (claim 8); register data including HLR data (claim 9); and receipt of the communications information from the second gateway (claim 20). The specification also contains apparatus claims directed to a DMA gateway with legacy/private-IP/gateway-network interfaces, a DMA server with private-IP and satellite interfaces, and an orbiting satellite gateway.

II. Prior Art Available (the "Prior Art" / Citations Section of the Patent)

The prior-art record relevant to this analysis comes from two sources: (a) the references cited on the face of the '988 patent and (b) the art relied upon in the inter partes review that has already tested these claims.

Examiner-cited references on the face of the '988 patent (per Ex. 1001 in IPR2023-00531):

• US 2006/0258358 A1 to Kallio (published Nov. 2006)
• US 2007/0147598 A1 to Somes et al. (published Jun. 2007)
• US 2007/0230352 A1 to Kokku et al. (published Oct. 2007)
• International Search Report and Written Opinion in corresponding PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/045973 (ISA/KR, mailed Jan. 18, 2010)

Art relied upon in IPR2023-00531 ([Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) and Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp.):

• Flore, US 2007/0021120 A1, "Inter-System Handover Using Legacy Interface" (Qualcomm, published Jan. 25, 2007) — the sole asserted reference (Pet., Ex. 1005)
• 3GPP TS 23.002 v7.1.0, "Network Architecture" (March 2006) — relied upon in Petitioner's expert declaration (Ex. 1003, Proctor Decl.)

Caveat on disclosure details: I was unable to retrieve the full text of the Kallio, Somes, and Kokku publications during this analysis, so I cannot assert with confidence what specific elements each teaches. The combination analysis below therefore focuses primarily on Flore and 3GPP TS 23.002, which are fully documented in the IPR record, and treats the examiner-cited references as supplementary art whose specific disclosures should be verified against the file wrapper.

III. Legal Framework and Level of Ordinary Skill

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim is unpatentable if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). The Graham factors require assessing (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., obviousness may be shown by combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and the combination of familiar elements according to their established functions is strong evidence of obviousness.

The parties in IPR2023-00531 agreed on the POSITA definition (Proctor Decl. ¶ 56; Cooklev Decl. ¶ 21): around 2008, a POSITA in this field would have had a bachelor's degree in electrical or computer engineering (or equivalent), about two years of industry experience in telecommunications networks, and knowledge of the design, architecture, and operation of mobile telecom networks including gateways, servers, and standards-compliant user devices.

IV. Primary Reference: Flore (US 2007/0021120 A1)

Flore is squarely within the '988 patent's field — integrating legacy and next-generation wireless networks. Flore discloses an Access Gateway (AGW) that sends a message requesting handover of a user equipment (UE) from a first radio access network (e.g., UTRAN) to a second RAN (e.g., E-UTRAN), using an Inter-Access-System (Inter-AS) Anchor that communicates with an SGSN in a GPRS core network via the legacy Gn interface (Ex. 1005, Abstract, [0026]-[0029], [0041], [0056]). Flore explicitly describes the same problem as the '988 patent — providing interoperability between new networks and "legacy networks 120 and 140" with "minimal impact" (compare Ex. 1005 [0003], [0029] with '988 patent 1:66–2:2). Flore's AGW and Inter-AS Anchor perform gateway-level control and routing between networks, and the GPRS/UMTS architecture it uses includes PDP contexts and SGSN/GGSN routing — the register/context infrastructure the '988 patent's "communications information" and "home DMA register" map onto.

Outcome in the IPR: The Board instituted review of claims 1, 3–9, and 20, and in its Final Written Decision (Paper 31, Sept. 10, 2024) found those claims unpatentable, concluding that Flore anticipates them (see Banner Witcoff-hosted FWD at http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/IPR2023-00531.pdf; Lemko's Federal Circuit appeal brief, Case 24-2336, describing the FWD as having "invalidated the '988 Patent" on Flore). Lemko has appealed, arguing the Board misconstrued "communications information" and failed to construe "distributed" (Appeal Brief, available via PTACTS: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558047](/patent/1558047)/download-documents?artifactId=iGgO1eM9j9KPFrtPeuTP_xloQwHktx4sIDy3Aeq0hGDHMZknukHAxR8). The appeal was pending as of the search date.

V. § 103 Combinations and Motivation to Combine

Because anticipation is the "acid test" of obviousness, a reference that anticipates necessarily renders the claims obvious. The Board's anticipation holding therefore establishes the strongest possible obviousness case for the challenged claims. Independently, the following combinations would render the claims obvious even if anticipation were rejected.

Combination 1: Flore alone (or Flore + the knowledge of a POSITA)

If, under any plausible claim construction, Flore's AGW/Inter-AS Anchor/SGSN architecture does not literally disclose every limitation of claim 1, the differences are at most design choices that a POSITA would find obvious:

• 1b (receiving communications information for a network accessible by a second gateway): Flore's handover procedure necessarily involves exchanging context/routing information (PDP context) between the source AGW and the target-side SGSN through the Inter-AS Anchor. Reusing that context-exchange mechanism to convey device-accessible-network information between two gateways is a predictable extension of Flore's own inter-system signaling.
• 1c (storing in a home DMA register): Flore operates in a 3GPP architecture whose network elements (SGSN, GGSN, HLR) already maintain subscriber location/register data. A POSITA would find it obvious to store the exchanged communications information in a register at the gateway — this is exactly what the 3GPP architecture teaches for SGSN/HLR data.
• 1d–1e (receiving a communication for a target device and relaying via the gateway network): Flore's Inter-AS Anchor is expressly an intermediary that relays messages between the AGW and SGSN over a defined interface (Gn). Routing a call to a target device by relaying through the gateway-to-gateway path is the same operation Flore performs for handover signaling.

Motivation: Flore identifies the identical problem (interworking new and legacy networks) and a POSITA seeking to extend Flore's handover-focused signaling to general call routing would have a clear motivation: the gateway and anchor nodes already terminate the signaling paths, so adding register-based routing to those same nodes is a routine, predictable improvement with no unexpected result.

Combination 2: Flore + 3GPP TS 23.002 v7.1.0 (March 2006)

This combination is the cleanest § 103 ground for the register/HLR-dependent limitations (claims 9 and 20, and limitation 1c):

• Claim 9 requires the communications information to include "communications register data including at least one of … a portion of home location register (HLR) data for the communications network." 3GPP TS 23.002 is the foundational network-architecture standard that defines the HLR, VLR, MSC, SGSN, and GGSN, and their interfaces. Flore's own GPRS/UMTS deployment (UTRAN + GPRS core network) is built on exactly this standard architecture.
• Claim 20 (first gateway receives communications information from the second gateway) is the standard HLR/VLR and SGSN/GGSN inter-node exchange paradigm codified in TS 23.002.

Motivation: A POSITA implementing Flore's gateway-based interworking would consult 3GPP TS 23.002 as the governing architecture standard. The standard is the canonical source for where subscriber register data lives and how it moves between nodes. Adding HLR-type register data to Flore's gateway-to-gateway context exchange is a predictable application of the standard to Flore's disclosed system. The Proctor Declaration in the IPR expressly relied on TS 23.002 for this purpose (Ex. 1003).

Combination 3: Flore + the examiner-cited art (Kallio, Somes et al., Kokku et al.)

The three references cited on the face of the '988 patent occupy the same wireless/telecom interworking space (as the examiner's citation of them indicates). To the extent each discloses gateway-level routing, location/register management, or inter-network handover (the examiner's reliance strongly suggests at least one of these features), they would combine with Flore:

• Claim 3 (satellite-based DMA servers): a satellite-based gateway/server implementation is a well-known transport alternative for the rural/remote deployments the '988 patent itself emphasizes; a POSITA would substitute a satellite uplink for a terrestrial link in Flore's gateway architecture as a matter of ordinary design choice.
• Claims 6–8 (notification, automatic push, query-based retrieval of communications information): these are standard database-synchronization and location-update patterns (registration notification, push update, and query/response) found throughout mobile-network register art; applying them to Flore's context exchange is a predictable variation.
• Claim 5 (PSTN/MSC/IP/ANSI-41 legacy networks): Flore already addresses legacy-network interworking; extending its gateway to terminate PSTN, MSC, public-IP, and ANSI-41 interfaces is the routine expansion of a gateway's interface set, which the '988 patent itself describes and which would be obvious from any of the cited references disclosing multi-interface gateways.

Motivation: All of these references address the same underlying problem the '988 patent identifies — "providing compatibility between these systems" (PSTN, VoIP, wireless, and next-generation networks) for rural deployment. The combination is of known elements (gateway, register, satellite link, inter-network handover) each performing its known function, yielding a predictable result. Under KSR, this is the paradigmatic obvious combination.

Combination 4: The examiner-cited references in combination (e.g., Kallio + Somes + Kokku, optionally + Flore)

Independently of Flore, the three cited references — if they collectively disclose a gateway with legacy-network, private-IP, and gateway-network interfaces plus register-data exchange — would render the apparatus claims (DMA gateway with first/second/third interfaces; DMA server with private-IP and satellite interfaces; orbiting-satellite gateway) obvious. The apparatus claims largely track the method claim's elements (interfaces for legacy, private-IP, and gateway-network communications; register storage; routing logic), so the same combination analysis applies.

VI. Secondary Considerations

The IPR record and litigation history do not reveal evidence of unexpected results, long-felt need, copying, or commercial success sufficient to overcome the strong prima facie case. Notably, the PTAB's Final Written Decision found the challenged claims unpatentable over a single reference (Flore), and the district court litigation (Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 3:22-cv-00363, N.D. Tex.) and the related IPR2023-00529 against the related '414 patent (where Microsoft relied on Waylett + Mauer) underscore that the core architecture — distributed servers with gateway-based routing and register exchange — was being actively explored in the art before 2008. Lemko's pending Federal Circuit appeal (Case 24-2336) challenges the Board's claim construction, not the existence of the prior art.

VII. Conclusion

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the challenged claims (1, 3–9, and 20) would be obvious over:

1. Flore alone (a fortiori, given the Board's anticipation finding that Flore discloses every limitation of the challenged claims);
2. Flore + 3GPP TS 23.002 for the HLR/register-data and inter-node register-exchange limitations (claims 9, 20; limitation 1c);
3. Flore + Kallio / Somes / Kokku for the satellite-server, notification/push/query, and multi-legacy-interface limitations (claims 3, 5, 6–8), with the motivation being the shared problem of interworking legacy and next-generation networks in remote deployments; and
4. The examiner-cited references in combination for the apparatus claims.

A POSITA (as defined in the IPR record) would have been motivated to make each combination because the references reside in the same field, address the same integration problem the '988 patent identifies, and combine known elements — gateways, registers, satellite links, and handover signaling — according to their established functions to yield predictable results under KSR.

Grounding note: The primary sources for this analysis are the IPR2023-00531 record (Petition, Ex. 1003 Proctor Declaration, Ex. 1005 Flore, FWD Paper 31), the Federal Circuit appeal brief in Case 24-2336, and the patent face/citations shown in Ex. 1001. Specific disclosures of Kallio (US 2006/0258358 A1), Somes (US 2007/0147598 A1), and Kokku (US 2007/0230352 A1) could not be verified in this session and should be confirmed against the '988 file wrapper before relying on them in a final invalidity position.