Invalidity dossier
US 7903640
Added 9/23/2026, 1:57:07 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
US 7,903,640 — Patent Overview
Title: System and method for voice over internet protocol using a standard telephone system
Patent number: US 7,903,640 B2
Application number: US 12/145,122
Inventors: John P. Ruckart; Rimas J. Rauba
Assignee (current and original): AT&T Intellectual Property I LP
Priority date: 2001-12-21
Filing date: 2008-06-24
Grant/publication date: 2011-03-08
Earlier publication: US 2008/0260139 A1 (2008-10-23)
Legal status as listed: Expired – Fee Related; adjusted expiration 2023-01-20
Classification: H04L 12/66 — arrangements for connecting between networks having differing types of switching systems (e.g., gateways)
Source (supplied excerpt): https://patents.google.com/patent/US7903640/en
Purpose. The patent describes routing predefined telephone calls—preferably toll or long-distance calls—from a standard (POTS) telephone through a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calling platform, converting the calls to IP protocol, and delivering them to endpoints on the service network, bypassing at least a portion of the public switched telephone network (PSTN).
Plain-language scope. A Central Office includes a trigger that identifies which calls go to the VoIP platform versus the conventional telephone network. Identification may use automatic number identification (ANI), DNIS, “1+” dialing, prefixes such as *99, area code, PIC, subscriber numbers, call volume, or predefined time slots (e.g., all calls after 7:00 p.m. EST). The trigger may instead reside in a subscriber's telephone—for example, a “VoIP key,” a switch, a subscriber code, or purchased “VoIP minutes.” The VoIP platform 240 may sit within the Central Office 220 or separately, and may route calls over the Internet, an Intranet, or an Extranet. Embodiments also mention multiple lines on one account, per-user account codes on a single line, and multi-location functionality; cellular calls may be handled via an MTSO.
What the excerpt does not establish. It does not provide claim text, a complete figure description, a full component list, or the omitted specification text; it does not establish litigation, ownership transfers, validity, or prior art. Legal status is Google Patents' assumption, not a legal conclusion.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:52:42 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7903640. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.