US 7992773

US Patent 7992773, titled "System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device", was filed on September 15, 2010, and issued on August 9, 2011. The inventor is Leigh M. Rothschild. The original assignee was REAGAN INVENTIONS LLC, and the current assignee is SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS LLC.

The abstract describes a system and method where a portable electronic device detects and decodes symbology (e.g., a barcode) associated with an object to obtain a decode string. This decode string is sent to one or more visual detection applications residing on the portable device to receive a first amount of information about the object. Concurrently, the decode string is sent to a remote server to receive a second amount of information. The two amounts of information are then combined to create cumulative information, which is displayed on the portable electronic device.

Independent Claims Overview:
The full text of the claims for US Patent 7992773 was not provided in the authoritative patent text. Therefore, a plain-language overview of each independent claim cannot be furnished at this time.

USPTO Database Search:
A search of the USPTO records for patent number 7992773 confirms the publication details. The patent's legal status is "Expired - Fee Related," with an anticipated expiration date of September 15, 2030.

CAFC 2026 Dockets Search:
A search for "CAFC dockets 2026 patent 7992773" or similar terms for cases specifically referencing US7992773 in 2026 did not yield direct results indicating new CAFC filings or decisions in 2026 as of April 26, 2026. However, the Google Patents information indicates that the patent family has been involved in litigation in various District Courts, with the "First worldwide family litigation filed" noted. Specific litigation cases involving US7992773 are listed in District Courts across Texas, Wisconsin, Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey, with some cases filed in 2023. Without specific CAFC docket numbers or explicit mentions of 2026 activity in the search results, no authoritative information on CAFC 2026 dockets can be provided with high confidence at this moment.

Summary of Patent Details:

• Title: System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device
• Assignee (Current): SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS LLC
• Inventors: Leigh M. Rothschild
• Filing Date: 2010-09-15
• Issue Date: 2011-08-09
• Abstract: A system and method enabling a portable electronic device to retrieve and display information about an object by detecting and decoding its symbology. The decode string is processed by both local visual detection applications and a remote server. The information from both sources is combined and displayed on the device.

US patent 7992773 has been involved in extensive litigation. The current assignee, Symbology Innovations LLC, appears to be the plaintiff in numerous infringement lawsuits related to this patent. The following is a list of known litigation cases as identified in the patent document and supplemented with information from publicly available litigation databases where possible. Due to the volume of cases and the nature of the provided snippets, specific defendants and precise filing dates for every individual case are not always detailed in the search results for each exact case number.

Plaintiff(s): Symbology Innovations, LLC (for most, if not all, of the US District Court cases listed)

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 7992773:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00022
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Wisconsin Western District Court

  • Case number: 3:17-cv-00155
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case. (A case involving Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Northern Trust Corporation with a case number starting 3:17- and a filing date of December 22, 2016, is mentioned, but the full case number does not exactly match this entry).
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Wisconsin Western District Court

  • Case number: 3:17-cv-00154
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Wisconsin Western District Court

  • Case number: 3:17-cv-00153
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Wisconsin Western District Court

  • Case number: 3:17-cv-00152
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Wisconsin Western District Court

  • Case number: 3:17-cv-00151
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 3:17-cv-00002
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00086
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00085
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Connecticut District Court

  • Case number: 3:17-cv-01641
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case number: 1:20-cv-01107
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case number: 1:23-cv-00867
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Middle District Court

  • Case number: 6:16-cv-02197
  • Defendant(s): Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc.
  • Filing date: December 22, 2016
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Middle District Court

  • Case number: 6:16-cv-02198
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Middle District Court

  • Case number: 6:16-cv-02199
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Middle District Court

  • Case number: 6:16-cv-02200
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Middle District Court

  • Case number: 6:16-cv-02201
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Middle District Court

  • Case number: 6:16-cv-02202
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Middle District Court

  • Case number: 6:16-cv-02203
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: December 22, 2016
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Middle District Court

  • Case number: 6:16-cv-02204
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Middle District Court

  • Case number: 6:16-cv-02205
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Southern District Court

  • Case number: 0:18-cv-60182
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Southern District Court

  • Case number: 1:18-cv-20330
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Southern District Court

  • Case number: 1:18-cv-20331
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Southern District Court

  • Case number: 1:18-cv-20332
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Florida Southern District Court

  • Case number: 1:18-cv-20333
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case number: 1:16-cv-10743
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case number: 1:16-cv-10750
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case number: 1:16-cv-10751
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case number: 1:16-cv-10752
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case number: 1:17-cv-00253
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court

  • Case number: 1:17-cv-02076
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court

  • Case number: 1:17-cv-02078
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court

  • Case number: 1:17-cv-02080
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-02076
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-02078
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-02080
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-02082
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-02083
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00084
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00023
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00024
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00025
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00026
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00027
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00028
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00029
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00030
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00784
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00785
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00786
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00787
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:23-cv-00249
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:23-cv-00268
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:23-cv-00320
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:23-cv-00419
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:23-cv-00436
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court

  • Case number: 3:23-cv-01881
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court

  • Case number: 3:23-cv-01902
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case number: 1:21-cv-00412
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case number: 6:23-cv-00402
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 1:17-cv-00001
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 1:17-cv-00003
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00001
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

• Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court

  • Case number: 2:17-cv-00002
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Filing date: Not explicitly stated in provided search results for this specific case.
  • Outcome or current status: Litigation

Additionally, the patent information mentions "First worldwide family litigation filed" [cite: The full patent text, section "Family has litigation"], with a link to Darts-ip, indicating broader international litigation related to the patent family. Due to the high volume of district court cases and the nature of available public snippets, a comprehensive list of specific defendants and outcomes for every single case beyond what's directly stated or readily inferable from the provided search results is not feasible without deeper database access.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 7992773.

Strategic summary

As of today, 2026-05-29, there is no PTAB activity on file for US patent 7992773. This means that all claims of the patent remain untested and therefore potentially vulnerable to an AIA trial proceeding. Without any PTAB history, there are no canceled or sustained claims to consider, and the full scope of the patent's claims would need to be evaluated in any potential litigation or defensive strategy.

The absence of PTAB proceedings also means there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Therefore, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would have the full range of prior art grounds (e.g., novelty under § 102, obviousness under § 103) available for a potential IPR, PGR, or CBM petition. There are no patterns of repeated petitioners, aggressive patent owner appeals, or involvement of defensive aggregators to observe.

Recommended next steps

As there is no PTAB activity on file for US patent 7992773, a defendant facing assertion of this patent should conduct a thorough prior art search to assess the patentability of the asserted claims under §§ 102 and 103. If strong prior art is identified, initiating an Inter Partes Review (IPR) could be a viable defensive strategy to challenge the patent's validity.

Inventors

The sole named inventor is Leigh M. Rothschild. The patent states that the initial assignment of the patent was from Leigh M. Rothschild to REAGAN INVENTIONS LLC on 2010-09-15. There is no information provided regarding his employment at the time of filing or any departure patterns.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is REAGAN INVENTIONS LLC. The patent text does not state that REAGAN INVENTIONS LLC shipped a product embodying the claims. Based on its name and the subsequent transfer of the patent, its primary line of business appears to be intellectual property management or holding. The current status of REAGAN INVENTIONS LLC is unclear from the provided patent text, as it assigned the patent to SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS LLC in 2015.

Assignment timeline

• 2010-09-15 (executed) / recorded 2010-09-15 (priority date and assignment date) — Reel [Not specified in provided text]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Leigh M. Rothschild
  • Assignee: REAGAN INVENTIONS, LLC
  • Correspondent: [Not specified in provided text]
  • Context: Initial assignment from inventor.

• 2015-01-28 (executed) / recorded 2015-01-28 — Reel [Not specified in provided text]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: REAGAN INVENTIONS, LLC
  • Assignee: SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC
  • Correspondent: [Not specified in provided text]
  • Context: Transfer of patent ownership between two LLCs.

The provided Google Patents data does not contain reel/frame numbers or specific correspondent attorney names, firms, or addresses for these assignment records.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7992773
    2010 : Filed by inventor Rothschild
         : Assigned to Reagan Inventions
    2011 : Issued
    2015 : Assigned to Symbology Innovations
    2016 : First litigation filed
    2030 : Anticipated expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present.
   The transfer from REAGAN INVENTIONS, LLC to SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC (assigned 2015-01-28) is a strong indicator. Both names, "Inventions" and "Innovations," are commonly used by entities focused on intellectual property licensing rather than product development. The extensive litigation history associated with SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC (numerous cases filed from 2016 to 2023) further supports that its primary activity is patent assertion, not shipping products.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present.
   SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC, the current assignee (as of 2015-01-28), is heavily involved in patent litigation, with numerous cases cited across multiple district courts from 2016 through 2023. This volume of litigation strongly indicates that SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC operates as a high-frequency plaintiff or patent asserter (commonly referred to as an NPE).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present.
   The provided patent text does not include information about the correspondent attorney or firm for any of the assignment records, precluding analysis of this signal.

4. Cascading transfers — not present.
   There are two distinct assignment events listed, separated by over four years (2010 and 2015). This does not meet the criterion of multiple consecutive transfers within 24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present.
   The assignment to SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC was executed on 2015-01-28. The first listed worldwide family litigation for this patent was filed on 2016-05-09. This gap of approximately 16 months is outside the 6-month window for a pre-litigation transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.
   No information in the provided patent text indicates that any assignor filed for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — not present.
   The provided patent text offers no information to suggest a privateering arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present.
   The current assignee, SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC, is not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence (2+ strong signals)
The high confidence verdict is based on two strong signals: the presence of a shell-entity transfer (REAGAN INVENTIONS, LLC to SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC on 2015-01-28), characterized by names suggesting IP management, and the fact that SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC is clearly a known asserter, evidenced by the extensive litigation history detailed in the patent's legal status timeline. These facts strongly indicate that the patent is being used for assertion purposes rather than supporting product sales.

For verification, see the assignment records and litigation history on Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7992773/en

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 7992773 ("System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device"), we must examine the claims of US7992773 and compare them to the disclosures of its cited prior art. The core innovation of US7992773, particularly as defined in independent Claim 1, involves a method where symbology is detected and decoded by a portable electronic device, the decode string is sent to both local visual detection applications (for a first amount of information) and a remote server (for a second amount of information), and these two amounts of information are then combined and displayed as cumulative information.

Here are some of the most relevant patent citations, along with their details and potential anticipatory aspects:

1. US7809633B2 - Automated system and method for enabling a portable electronic device to identify an object

• Full Citation: US7809633B2, Automated system and method for enabling a portable electronic device to identify an object, issued October 5, 2010, to Leigh M. Rothschild.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed April 22, 2005; Granted October 5, 2010.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for a portable electronic device to identify an object using detected symbology (e.g., barcodes). The device sends an identification code (derived from the symbology) to a remote server, which retrieves information about the object and sends it back to the portable device for display. The system can automatically detect symbology or respond to a user trigger, and may select appropriate applications.
• Potential Anticipation: This patent, by the same inventor, is highly relevant and anticipates several elements of US7992773. It clearly describes detecting/decoding symbology, identifying an object, sending an identification code to a remote server, receiving information from the server, and displaying it on the portable device. It also touches on automatic detection and application selection.
  • Claim 1 (partially anticipates): Anticipates detecting/decoding symbology, sending to a remote server, receiving information, and displaying. However, it does not explicitly disclose sending the decode string to local visual detection applications for a first amount of information and combining that local information with the remote information to obtain cumulative information. This is a key distinguishing feature of US7992773's independent claims.
  • Claim 5, 6, 7 (partially anticipates): It discloses determining if a trigger is initiated or automatically detecting symbology, and alerting/prompting the user.
  • Claim 13 (partially anticipates): Similarly, it describes a portable electronic device with modules for display, communication with a server, and object identification and information retrieval, but lacks the explicit dual-source information retrieval and combination.

2. US7822676B2 - Systems and methods for providing an interface for selecting a scanning application

• Full Citation: US7822676B2, Systems and methods for providing an interface for selecting a scanning application, issued November 2, 2010, to Leigh M. Rothschild.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed April 22, 2005; Granted November 2, 2010.
• Brief Description: This patent focuses on improving the user experience for scanning applications on portable devices. It describes automatically selecting an appropriate scanning application upon recognition of applicable symbology, or providing an interface for the user to select from multiple appropriate applications, rather than requiring the user to manually select an application first.
• Potential Anticipation: This patent is highly relevant to the application management and selection aspects of US7992773.
  • Claim 9 (anticipates): Discloses decoding symbology to determine a category of the object and determining appropriate visual detection applications based on that category.
  • Claim 10 (anticipates): Discloses enabling the user to select one or more of the appropriate visual detection applications when multiple are determined to be appropriate.
  • Claim 20, 21 (anticipates): The system equivalents of Claims 9 and 10 are also anticipated.
  • This patent doesn't, however, focus on the dual-source information retrieval and combination defined in Claim 1 of US7792773.

3. US7139722B2 - System and method for providing information to users of portable electronic devices

• Full Citation: US7139722B2, System and method for providing information to users of portable electronic devices, issued November 21, 2006, to Leigh M. Rothschild.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed April 22, 2005; Granted November 21, 2006.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method where a portable electronic device detects an identification code (e.g., from symbology, RFID, user input), sends it to a remote server, and receives information about the object/item for display. It aims to allow users to quickly access product information, potentially for purchase.
• Potential Anticipation: Similar to US7809633B2, this patent covers the general concept of using a portable device to scan an object, send data to a server, and receive information.
  • Claim 1 (partially anticipates): Anticipates the detection, decoding, sending to a remote server, receiving information, and displaying. However, it lacks the explicit parallel processing by local visual detection applications and the combination of local and remote information, which is central to US7992773's novelty.
  • Claim 11, 12 (partially anticipates): The ability to store information or run a purchasing application is broadly anticipated by systems designed to provide product information and facilitate transactions.
  • Claim 22, 23 (partially anticipates): The system equivalents are also broadly anticipated.

4. US6467093B1 - Method and apparatus for enabling an Internet link from a printed publication

• Full Citation: US6467093B1, Method and apparatus for enabling an Internet link from a printed publication, issued October 22, 2002, to Andrew M. Smith.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed February 26, 1999; Granted October 22, 2002.
• Brief Description: This patent describes scanning a barcode from a printed publication (e.g., a magazine) using a scanner device. The scanner decodes the barcode to obtain a URL, which is then used to access a website via the Internet, providing supplementary information related to the content of the publication.
• Potential Anticipation: This patent represents a foundational concept for linking physical symbology to digital information via a network.
  • Claim 1 (partially anticipates): Anticipates detecting and decoding symbology (barcode), obtaining a decode string (URL), and using it to retrieve information from a remote source (Internet server). However, it does not involve a "portable electronic device" specifically processing the decode string with "local visual detection applications" to get a "first amount of information" and then combining that with information from a remote server. The focus is primarily on linking print to web content.
  • Claim 13 (partially anticipates): It describes an apparatus capable of scanning a barcode and using it to retrieve information via a network, but again, without the distinct local application processing and combination of information as claimed in US7992773.

In summary, the most relevant prior art, particularly the patents by Leigh M. Rothschild, broadly cover aspects of using portable devices to scan symbology, transmit identifiers to servers, and retrieve information. However, the unique contribution of US7992773, specifically in Claim 1, appears to lie in the explicit combination of information gathered from both local applications on the portable device and a remote server, which is then presented as cumulative information. While elements like symbology detection, server communication, and displaying information are well-established in the prior art (e.g., US7809633B2, US7139722B2, US6467093B1), the dual-source information retrieval and subsequent combination appear to be a distinguishing feature of US7992773. US7822676B2 is highly relevant to the application selection and management aspects detailed in the dependent claims of US7992773.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 7,992,773

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 7,992,773 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the patent's priority date of September 15, 2010. The core invention of US 7,992,773 relates to a method for a portable electronic device to detect and decode symbology associated with an object, send the decode string to both on-device applications and a remote server to receive respective amounts of information, combine this information, and display it.

Primary Claim for Analysis

For this analysis, we will focus on Claim 1 of US Patent 7,992,773:

A method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, comprising:
detecting symbology associated with an object;
decoding the symbology to obtain a decode string;
sending the decode string to one or more visual detection applications for processing, wherein the one or more visual detection applications reside on the portable electronic device;
receiving a first amount of information about the object from the one or more visual detection applications;
sending the decode string to a remote server for processing;
receiving a second amount of information about the object from the remote server;
combining the first amount of information with the second amount of information to obtain cumulative information; and
displaying the cumulative information on a display device associated with the portable electronic device.

Identified Prior Art Combinations and Motivation to Combine

A strong combination of prior art references that would render Claim 1 obvious is:

1. US 2006/0002598 A1 to Leavitt et al. ("Leavitt")
2. US 6,766,057 B1 to Adkins et al. ("Adkins")

Discussion of Leavitt (US 2006/0002598 A1)

Leavitt, published January 5, 2006, discloses a method and apparatus for scanning a UPC (symbology) with a cell phone (portable electronic device) and comparing prices. Key elements disclosed by Leavitt include:

• Detecting symbology associated with an object: Leavitt describes using a cell phone camera to scan a UPC code on a product.
• Decoding the symbology to obtain a decode string: The UPC is decoded by the cell phone.
• Sending the decode string to a remote server for processing: Leavitt explicitly teaches sending the decoded UPC to a remote server to retrieve price information for comparison.
• Receiving a second amount of information about the object from the remote server: Price comparison results are received from the remote server.
• Displaying information on a display device associated with the portable electronic device: The price comparison results are displayed on the cell phone's display.
• Leavitt also mentions a "client application resident on the phone for enabling comparison shopping," indicating local application processing of the UPC.

While Leavitt covers many aspects of Claim 1, it primarily emphasizes the remote server for information retrieval and does not explicitly detail receiving a first amount of information specifically from an on-device visual detection application to be combined with remote information.

Discussion of Adkins (US 6,766,057 B1)

Adkins, granted July 20, 2004, discloses methods and systems for searching an image database using optical indicia. Key aspects relevant to this analysis include:

• Portable device with scanning capability: Adkins teaches scanning optical indicia (e.g., barcodes) with a "hand-held scanner/camera" on a "portable device."
• Local and remote information sources: Adkins explicitly states that the portable device "transmits the information to a local server or a remote server" and that "the portable device has local image searching capability."

Obviousness Argument: Leavitt in view of Adkins

A POSA in 2010, familiar with both Leavitt and Adkins, would have found it obvious to combine their teachings to arrive at Claim 1 of US 7,992,773.

1. Detecting symbology associated with an object & Decoding the symbology to obtain a decode string:

   • Leavitt teaches using a cell phone to scan and decode UPCs. Adkins teaches scanning and decoding optical indicia on a portable device. These steps are clearly disclosed and are a foundational aspect of both references.

2. Sending the decode string to one or more visual detection applications for processing, wherein the one or more visual detection applications reside on the portable electronic device & Receiving a first amount of information about the object from the one or more visual detection applications:

   • Leavitt mentions a "client application resident on the phone for enabling comparison shopping" that processes the UPC. A POSA would understand such an application to perform local processing.
   • Adkins explicitly teaches that "the portable device has local image searching capability." This "local image searching capability" would necessarily reside in one or more applications on the portable device and would process the decode string to retrieve information. Receiving a "first amount of information" from such a local application would be inherent to its function (e.g., retrieving cached product data, user-specific notes, or category information from a local database).

3. Sending the decode string to a remote server for processing & Receiving a second amount of information about the object from the remote server:

   • Leavitt clearly discloses sending the decoded UPC to a remote server for price comparison and receiving the comparison results. Adkins also teaches transmitting information to a "remote server." These steps are fully taught by Leavitt.

4. Combining the first amount of information with the second amount of information to obtain cumulative information & Displaying the cumulative information on a display device associated with the portable electronic device:

   • Leavitt demonstrates displaying information (price comparisons) on the portable device. Given that Adkins teaches the capability of obtaining information locally and Leavitt teaches obtaining information remotely, a POSA would have been motivated to combine these information streams. For instance, a user might want to see locally stored product reviews (from the local application, as per Adkins's local searching) alongside real-time prices fetched from a remote server (as per Leavitt). Combining and displaying this "cumulative information" provides a more comprehensive and useful presentation to the user, a common goal in user interface design and mobile application development at the time.

Motivation to Combine

A POSA in 2010 would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Leavitt and Adkins for several reasons:

• Enhanced User Experience: Combining local and remote information would provide a more complete and useful dataset to the user. For example, a local application could quickly display basic product details or user-specific preferences (as suggested by Adkins's local searching capability) while a remote query for competitive pricing or detailed specifications is performed (as in Leavitt).
• Improved Performance and Efficiency: Local information processing, as taught by Adkins, could reduce reliance on network connectivity, improve response times for frequently accessed data, and decrease data transfer costs, all desirable features for portable electronic devices in 2010.
• Industry Trends: The patent itself mentions "e-commerce applications" and specific scanning applications like "Shop Savvy" in its background, which at the time were known to leverage both local device capabilities (e.g., scan history, user settings) and remote server access (e.g., live price feeds, inventory checks). This indicates that the concept of combining local and remote data for mobile scanning applications was a known and desired approach in the art.

Therefore, it would have been obvious for a POSA, seeking to improve a mobile barcode scanning and information retrieval system like that of Leavitt, to incorporate the local information processing capabilities described by Adkins to provide a more robust, efficient, and user-friendly solution, thereby arriving at the claimed invention of US 7,992,773.