US 8107409

Let me search for any litigation or appellate activity involving this patent number specifically.

Let me look into whether the CAFC appeals and IPRs specifically involve patent '409 (8107409) versus other Lemko patents.

Summary of U.S. Patent No. 8,107,409 (US8107409B2)

I searched for the exact number 8107409 (not similar numbers). The authoritative bibliographic data in the supplied patent text is confirmed by Google Patents and other search results. I found no CAFC docket specifically naming 8,107,409 as of today; the closest Lemko appellate/PTAB activity appears to involve other Lemko patents (details and uncertainty below).

Bibliographic facts

Abstract (verbatim-ish): A method of routing calls includes receiving a call at a first distributed mobile architecture gateway (dMAG) from a legacy communication network. A routing path is determined based on register data associated with a mobile station, the routing path including components of the first dMAG, a first dMA node, and a private IP network. Command messages reserve those components; confirmation messages are received; and the call is connected to the mobile station via the reserved components. (Note: the granted claims are apparatus claims, described below.)

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The granted patent has 30 claims with two independent claims (1 and 26); claims 2–25 depend on claim 1 and claims 27–30 depend on claim 26.

• Claim 1 – A distributed mobile architecture gateway (dMAG). A gateway device that (a) has a data storage device and a legacy-network interface; (b) keeps a home dMA register listing dMA nodes it is designated to serve (with call routing to their mobile stations) and a visitor dMA register listing roaming dMA nodes whose calls it temporarily routes; (c) has a "master agent" that receives performance data from both home and visitor dMA nodes; and (d) has an operations module that stores the performance data locally and forwards visitor-node performance data to other dMAGs over a private IP network. At least some of the calls it routes go through the legacy-network interface.
• Claim 26 – A distributed mobile architecture (dMA) node. A node with a data-network connection to a private IP network and a performance module that sends performance data to a first dMAG when in that dMAG's range (data about the node's components and calls routed there) and sends performance data to a second dMAG when in the second dMAG's range. The node stays listed in the home dMA register of the first dMAG even while roaming into the second dMAG's range, where it is additionally listed in the second dMAG's visitor dMA register.

Dependent claims add features such as: a management information base (MIB) with performance requirements (claim 2), fault/error analysis and re-route messaging (claims 3–6), SNMP or agent-X communication (claims 9–10), a maintenance module distributing software updates and MIB backups (claims 11–14), GUI modules including remote/Internet-portal access (claims 18–22), billing/administration (claim 24), and a provisioning module that reserves resources based on performance data (claim 25); and, for the node, sub-agents monitoring components, configuration storage, and maintenance/software updates (claims 28–30).

Litigation and appellate activity (as found in searches)

• District court (N.D. Tex.): Lemko Corp. v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) and Affirmed Networks, Inc., 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT, filed Feb. 14, 2022. The '409 patent is one of eight Lemko patents asserted there. Per docket documents, the court granted in part a motion to dismiss (contributory infringement claims dismissed with prejudice; motion otherwise denied) in an order dated June 4, 2025. Unified Patents lists the case as "Closed." Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3%3A22-cv-00363 and Justia Docket No. 94.
• PTAB/IPR: Microsoft and Affirmed Networks filed IPR2023-00529 (challenging U.S. Patent 7,653,414) and IPR2023-00530 (challenging U.S. Patent 7,548,763, not instituted). Neither IPR is directed to 8,107,409 based on the records I retrieved.
• CAFC: An oral-argument listing exists for Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corporation, Appeal No. 2024-2336, and a Law360 piece (Apr. 10, 2026) reports Lemko losing a Federal Circuit bid to revive claims after the PTAB found claims invalid. Based on the IPR records, that appeal appears tied to the '414 patent (7,653,414) rather than 8,107,409, but I could not confirm the patent number(s) in the CAFC appeal with high confidence — the search results did not expressly state that 8,107,409 was before the CAFC in 2026.

Uncertainty notes

• I found no CAFC 2026 docket specifically identified as involving 8,107,409; do not assume the 2024-2336 appeal or the April 2026 Law360 report concerns this patent without verifying the appeal's caption documents.
• The June 2025 N.D. Tex. order and the "closed" case status are from secondary docket aggregators (Unified Patents, Justia, CourtListener); I did not pull the USPTO Patent Center record directly for this patent in this session.
• The published application (US20100008306A1) contained additional method claims (e.g., call-routing methods with resource-reservation messaging); those were not carried into the granted patent's independent claims, which are the two apparatus claims (1 and 26) described above.

Litigation Involving US Patent 8,107,409

Based on searches of district-court dockets, PTAB records, and litigation databases, I have identified one district-court case that asserts US 8,107,409, plus related proceedings involving the same parties.

1. Lemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc.

• Plaintiff(s): Lemko Corporation
• Defendant(s): Microsoft Corporation; Affirmed Networks, Inc. (acquired by Microsoft in March 2022)
• Jurisdiction / Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
• Case Number: 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (also styled 3:2022cv00363)
• Filing date: February 14, 2022 (the Unified Patents portal lists the filing date as February 13, 2022; Justia and the docket reflect February 14, 2022)
• Asserted patents: The complaint and amended complaints assert multiple Lemko patents, including the '409 patent (identified in the pleadings as one of the "Asserted Patents"). The magistrate judge's report describes the '409 patent as disclosing "a DMAG that routes communications to DMA nodes and to roaming DMA nodes, including communications received from a legacy network, and to DMA nodes that can send performance data to a home DMAG and to a visitor DMAG" — which corresponds to US 8,107,409 ("OAMP for distributed mobile architecture").

Procedural history / current status:

• Lemko's infringement claims (direct and indirect) were challenged on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. On August 13, 2024, Judge Sam A. Lindsay accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation (Doc. 77) and dismissed without prejudice Lemko's direct and indirect infringement claims, granting one final opportunity to amend (deadline September 6, 2024).
• Lemko filed a Second Amended Complaint, and Defendants again moved to dismiss. On June 4, 2025, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part: contributory infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, but the motion was otherwise denied (i.e., direct and other indirect infringement claims survived). Lemko's April 15, 2025 press release likewise announced that the court denied Microsoft's motion to dismiss Lemko's direct and indirect infringement claims.
• The Unified Patents litigation portal currently lists the case as "Closed" (Texas Northern District Court), though the June 4, 2025 order reflects continued activity; I could not confirm a final judgment or settlement from the available search results.

Related PTAB proceedings (NOT against the '409 patent — included for clarity)

The same parties have litigated related Lemko patents before the PTAB and Federal Circuit, but those proceedings concern different patents, not US 8,107,409:

• IPR2023-00529 — Microsoft Corp. and Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp. (Patent 7,653,414 B2)
• IPR2023-00531 — Microsoft Corp. and Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp. (Patent 7,855,988 B2; Final Written Decision Sept. 10, 2024; appealed to the Federal Circuit)
• The Federal Circuit appeal of IPR2023-00531 was argued/reported around April 10, 2026 (Law360: "Microsoft Keeps PTAB Win Against Communications Patent"), again concerning the '988 patent, not the '409.

Caveats

• I found no evidence of PTAB IPR proceedings, ITC investigations, or other district-court cases specifically directed to US 8,107,409 beyond case 3:22-cv-00363.
• The Google Patents "family has litigation" flag for US 8,107,740's family (ID 41505102) points to the same Texas Northern District case (3:22-cv-00363).
• I could not confirm from the available sources whether 3:22-cv-00363 has reached a final judgment, settlement, or entry of "closed" status as of today (April 26, 2026); for the most current docket status, PACER (case 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT, N.D. Tex.) would be authoritative.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) on file against US 8,107,409: the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no proceedings, and independent searching of PTAB dockets, Unified Patents' PTAB portal, Docket Alarm, and press coverage surfaced no petition naming this patent. No claims have been invalidated, no claims have been sustained in a Final Written Decision, and no institution has been denied — the patent is simply untested at the PTAB. The bottom line for a defendant: this patent has never been meaningfully attacked at the Office, so there is no PTAB-based kill shot on the table today, but there is also no estoppel barring a future petitioner (within its § 315(b) window) from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground of its choosing.

Proceedings

There are no proceedings to profile. For completeness and to demonstrate that the absence is real rather than a data gap, the proceedings that look related but are not against 8,107,409 are:

Related (but different-patent) Microsoft/Affirmed IPRs — NOT against '409

All of these concern different Lemko patents in the same distributed-mobile-architecture family — none challenges 8,107,409 ("OAMP for distributed mobile architecture"). The '409 patent is the parent of the asserted family member 9,198,020 (child division US 13/334,753) and is a sibling of the '990/'988 line, but Microsoft and Affirmed Networks chose not to petition against it despite asserting it in district court.

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. All 30 claims of 8,107,409 — including independent claims 1 (dMAG apparatus) and 26 (dMA node apparatus) — are UNTESTED at the PTAB. None has been canceled. None has been sustained in an FWD (a proceeding that ends with claim-by-claim patentability findings). The patent's adjusted expiration is 2030-10-19, so every claim remains presumptively valid and enforceable.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM has been instituted on this patent, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has attached to anyone with respect to grounds against 8,107,409. That cuts both ways for a defendant:

• For Microsoft/Affirmed (defendants in the N.D. Tex. case 3:22-cv-00363, filed 2022-02-14, where '409 is one of eight asserted patents): the § 315(b) one-year bar from service has long since run (it expired February 2023). They cannot now petition on this patent — which likely explains why they attacked sibling patents instead and why no IPR on '409 exists despite active, years-long litigation.
• For a newly-sued defendant (served within the last year): all § 102/§ 103 grounds based on patents and printed publications remain fully available — nothing has been consumed by a prior petition, and the same-petitioner pattern from the Microsoft/AT&T petitions shows the art (e.g., Flore, US 2007/0021120 A1, used against the '988/'990 line) is already developed and can be leveraged.

Pattern signals. (1) The same petitioner group (Microsoft, joined later by AT&T) has filed multiple IPRs against Lemko's dMA family — '414, '763 (denied), '988 (lost at FWD; Lemko appealed), and '990 (pending) — but deliberately skipped '409 and its child '020 in the N.D. Tex. case. That is a strategic choice, most plausibly driven by the § 315(b) clock and claim-scope differences, not by a lack of desire to attack the family. (2) Lemko defends aggressively: it has filed substantive Preliminary Responses, discretionary-denial requests (e.g., in IPR2025-01142), and pursued a CAFC appeal of the '988 FWD (Lemko v. Microsoft, argued/reported April 2026 — Lemko lost). (3) On the financial side, the March 2025 recorded patent security agreement to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC indicates the patent is encumbered as loan collateral — worth knowing when assessing settlement leverage and who controls the asset. (4) No defensive-aggregator petition (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in the chain for this patent.

Recommended next steps

• There is no FWD to quote and no canceled claim to lean on. If a demand letter cites claims of 8,107,409, the troll's claims are fully intact — you cannot point to a PTAB disposition. Do not let anyone tell you "claims 1–5 were canceled in an IPR"; that happened to other Lemko patents (e.g., '988 claims 1, 3–9, 20), not to '409.
• If you are a new defendant and were served less than one year ago: the § 315(b) window is open. Commission a prior-art search now and evaluate an IPR on independent claims 1 and 26 plus the dependent claims you actually infringe. The Flore-based ground that carried the '988 FWD (US 2007/0021120 A1) and the art used in IPR2023-00529 are the natural starting points — those records are public and fully developed. Verify current claim scope against the FWD-era constructions in the sibling cases.
• If you are Microsoft/Affirmed or in privity: the § 315(b) bar has closed the PTAB door on this patent. Your validity fight is in district court (3:22-cv-00363-L-BT, N.D. Tex.) — confirm the current docket status, since aggregators show the case "closed" while a 2025-06-04 order granting-in-part/denying-in-part a motion to dismiss reflects continued activity; PACER is authoritative.
• Confirm the null result before spending money: run a final check on the USPTO PTAB E2E/PTACTS proceeding search for "8107409" and on Unified Patents' PTAB portal for any petition filed after the most recent ODP ingest. The absence of any IPR on a patent asserted since February 2022 is itself a signal — it means the existing defendants were time-barred or chose other targets, not that the claims are strong. For a defendant inside the one-year window, this patent is a legitimate and comparatively inexpensive IPR target.

Inventors

• ShaoWei Pan (sole inventor). Employer at filing: Lemko Corporation (he is the company's founder, President, and CTO; Illinois corporate records list him as President at 846 E Algonquin Rd, Schaumburg, IL). No unusual inventor-departure pattern: the sole inventor is still CTO of the original assignee as of 2024 per ZoomInfo/Craft profiles. The only "assignment" from Pan personally post-dating issuance (2015, below) is a title-chain clean-up, not a departure signal.

Original assignee

• Lemko Corporation — the entity named on the issued patent and the assignee of the 2008-07-11 inventor assignment recorded with the filing. Lemko is an active Illinois corporation (registered 2002-08-02, status ACTIVE, agent Roger T. Stelle, 1515 E Woodfield Rd Ste 250, Schaumburg, IL) and an operating company: it develops and sells distributed-mobile-architecture software and 4G/5G systems for private networks, rural broadband, and military/public-safety deployments. It has shipped products embodying the dMA architecture and is still operating (no bankruptcy, no dissolution found).

Assignment timeline

I could not pull the USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame numbers in this session (live-search limits were reached before the Assignment Center records could be retrieved). The entries below are the recorded conveyances as reflected in Google Patents' legal-events feed for US 8107409. They are consistent with the USPTO-recorded events list but reel/frame numbers and correspondents are not verified — verify at the Assignment Center by patent number before relying on the specifics.

• 2008-07-11 (executed/recorded, same day as filing) — Reel/frame: not verified

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: ShaoWei Pan
  • Assignee: Lemko Corporation
  • Correspondent: not available in this session
  • Context: original inventor-to-company assignment recorded at filing.

• 2012-02-21 — Reel/frame: not verified

  • Conveyance: Covenant Not To Sue (recorded as a conveyance naming the beneficiary as "assignee" of record for that document)
  • Assignor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee: Motorola Solutions, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available in this session
  • Context: covenant not to sue granted to Motorola Solutions — a license-like restriction, not a transfer of title; likely tied to a business/settlement relationship with Motorola.

• 2015-05-12 — Reel/frame: not verified

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: ShaoWei Pan
  • Assignee: Lemko Corporation
  • Correspondent: not available in this session
  • Context: later-recorded inventor assignment re-confirming Lemko's chain of title (typical title clean-up ahead of monetization/assertion).

• 2025-03-25 — Reel/frame: not verified

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee: Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as Security Holder
  • Correspondent: not available in this session
  • Context: patents pledged as collateral for debt to a secured lender — a security interest, not a transfer of ownership.

If the Assignment Center in fact shows no additional records, that would be consistent with the above: Lemko Corporation has remained the owner of record continuously since 2008, with the 2012 and 2025 entries being non-title conveyances.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8107409
    2008 : Filed by Lemko Corp
         : Inventor assignment to Lemko
    2012 : Covenant not to sue to Motorola
    2015 : Inventor assignment re-recorded
    2022 : Lemko sues Microsoft and Affirmed
    2025 : Security agreement to Piccadilly

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No transfer of title to an "IP / Licensing / Holdings" LLC appears in the record. The only LLC in the chain, Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC (2025), took a security interest as lender, not ownership; no product-less shell acquired the patent.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present (with one caveat). Lemko is an operating company, not on the Acacia/Marathon/IV/Wi-LAN/Mosaid/Conversant/Vringo-type NPE lists. I found no evidence that Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC is a named high-frequency plaintiff; it appears to be a patent-secured lender rather than an asserter, but I could not independently confirm its business model in this session.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not assessable. Correspondent data was not retrievable in this session. No finding is made from naming alone.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. The chain is short and non-cascading: Pan → Lemko (2008), a 2012 covenant (non-title), a 2015 title re-confirmation, and a 2025 security agreement (non-title). No chained LLC-to-LLC transfers within 24 months.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. First infringement suit naming this patent: Lemko v. Microsoft/Affirmed, N.D. Tex. 3:22-cv-00363, filed 2022-02-14. The nearest title event (2015) is ~6.5 years earlier, far outside the 6-month window.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Lemko is an active Illinois corporation; no Chapter 7/11 proceeding found.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence of an operating company transferring the patent to an NPE to assert against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; the current owner of record remains Lemko Corporation.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. Lemko Corporation has been the owner of record continuously since the 2008 inventor assignment; the 2012 Motorola covenant and the 2025 Piccadilly security agreement are non-title conveyances, and no shell-entity, cascading, pre-litigation, or bankruptcy-fire-sale pattern appears in the available record. Lemko is a private operating company (4G/5G distributed-mobile-architecture products) that filed the sole known suit naming this patent — Lemko v. Microsoft Corp. and Affirmed Networks, Inc., 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (N.D. Tex., filed 2022-02-14) — against a party in its own technology space, which is characteristic of an operating-company assertion rather than NPE activity. Confidence is moderate rather than high only because I could not verify the USPTO reel/frame entries and correspondents directly in this session.

Verify the record at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 8107409; the mirror index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html surfaces the same records).

I have reached the search-step limit, so the remainder of this analysis relies on (a) the authoritative bibliographic citation list embedded in the supplied patent text, (b) full-text retrievals I obtained for three of the eight cited references, and (c) the front-page "Citations (8)" data from Google Patents. Where I could not retrieve the full text of a cited reference, I say so explicitly rather than reconstructing its disclosure.

Prior-Art Analysis of US 8,107,409 B2 ("OAMP for distributed mobile architecture")

Preliminary: what is on the face of the patent

The front page of US 8,107,409 B2 (application 12/171,840, filed July 11, 2008, by ShaoWei Pan / Lemko Corporation) lists eight U.S. patent documents under "Citations (8)" in the Google Patents record reproduced in the task materials. The long "Family Cites Families" list (189 entries) belongs to the broader Lemko family and is not the examiner's citation set for the '409 patent; I therefore analyze only the eight documents cited on the '409 record.

Statutory framework. Because '409 was filed July 11, 2008 (pre-AIA), the applicable bars are:

• § 102(a) – printed publication anywhere before the invention;
• § 102(b) – U.S. patent or printed publication more than one year before July 11, 2008, i.e., published before July 11, 2007;
• § 102(e) – described in a U.S. application "by another" filed before the invention.

A § 102(e) caveat matters for the three Lemko/Pan references below: because '409 is invented solely by ShaoWei Pan, earlier Lemko applications naming Pan alone are not "by another" and cannot be § 102(e) art against '409 — but they can be § 102(a) printed-publication art, and those published before July 11, 2007 are also § 102(b) statutory-bar art.

Claims at issue. The granted patent has 30 claims with two independent apparatus claims:

• Claim 1 – a distributed mobile architecture gateway (dMAG) comprising: data storage device; legacy-network interface; home dMA register listing a first group of dMA nodes (designated call routing + performance-data storage); visitor dMA register listing a second, roaming group (temporary routing); a master agent receiving performance data from each node of both groups; and an operations module that (i) stores the performance data and (ii) sends visitor-group performance data to one or more additional dMAGs via a private IP network. Claims 2–25 add MIB/thresholds, error handling, SNMP/agent-X, maintenance/software, GUI, billing, and provisioning modules.
• Claim 26 – a dMA node with a private-IP data connection and a performance module that sends performance data to a first dMAG while in its range (home-register status retained) and to a second dMAG while in the second dMAG's range (added to the second dMAG's visitor register). Claims 27–30 add monitored components, configuration, and maintenance/update features.

The novel core across both independent claims is the OAMP machinery: performance-data collection from both home and roaming node groups, master-agent aggregation, local storage, and forwarding of roaming-node performance data to peer dMAGs over a private IP network. Anticipation of claims 1 or 26 therefore requires a reference disclosing that specific multi-gateway performance-management arrangement.

The eight cited references, with claim-by-claim potential-anticipation notes

1. US 6,418,308 B1 — "Opinion poll utilizing a wireless data transmission connection"

• Full citation: Heinonen, Okkonen & Tuomi; Nokia Mobile Phones Ltd.; US 6,418,308 B1; filed as U.S. national-stage of PCT/FI97/00490 (Appl. 09/242,955, entered Apr. 5, 1999); foreign priority FI 963375 (Aug. 29, 1996); granted July 9, 2002.
• Description (full text retrieved): A method/system for conducting opinion polls by transmitting a query from a communicator's data system through a GSM short-message service center to recipient mobile telephones, buffering undelivered messages, and collecting/processing replies. No base-station- or gateway-level network architecture, no registers, no network management.
• § 102 status: § 102(a) and § 102(b) prior art (published/granted well before 2007 and 2008). Not by applicant.
• Potential anticipation: None of claims 1–30. It lacks every structural element of claims 1 and 26: no dMA node/dMAG, no home/visitor dMA registers, no master agent, no performance-data forwarding, no legacy-network gateway interface. This citation is background art for wireless message delivery/buffering only.

2. US 2004/0204097 A1 — "Internet base station"

• Full citation: Scheinert & Down; Ibis Telecom, Inc. (later Intel Corp.); US 2004/0204097 A1; Appl. 10/280,733; filed Oct. 25, 2002; published Oct. 14, 2004; granted as US 7,117,015 B2 (Oct. 3, 2006).
• Description (full text retrieved): Low-power "Internet base stations" (IBS)/personal base stations connected to subscribers' broadband lines, managed by Internet base station controllers (IBSC) coupled to an MSC; a configuration manager measures IBS link performance, reserves bandwidth for wireless traffic, downloads operational software, and authenticates location; the IBSC maintains its own HLR/VLR-style internal/external cell-ID tables behind the MSC's HLR/VLR; roaming/hosting agreements let a "MOBS" (mobile personal base station) reassign between different IBSCs/networks.
• § 102 status: § 102(a)/(b) prior art. Not by applicant.
• Potential anticipation: Does not fully anticipate claim 1 or claim 26. It teaches an analogous distributed radio system (IP-connected small base stations behind an Internet controller/MSC) and does disclose (i) performance measurement of the IBS-to-IBSC link, (ii) bandwidth reservation/provisioning, (iii) software download/upgrade, and (iv) HLR/VLR-type registration with reassignment between controllers/networks. However, it does not disclose the claimed (a) dMAG with separate home and visitor dMA registers for groups of whole dMA nodes (its HLR/VLR tables register mobiles, not nodes), (b) master agent aggregating performance data from both home and roaming node groups, or (c) operations module forwarding visitor-node performance data to other dMAGs over a private IP network. At most it reads on individual limitations, so it is a secondary/combination reference, relevant to dependent-claim concepts: bandwidth/performance-based resource provisioning (claim 25), maintenance/software distribution (claims 11–13), and configuration management. For claim 26, its MOBS roaming/reassignment is conceptually close, but the dual-dMAG performance reporting with maintained home-register status is absent.

3. US 2006/0098661 A1 — "System, method and device for providing communications using a distributed mobile architecture"

• Full citation: Pan; Lemko Corporation; US 2006/0098661 A1; filed Nov. 8, 2004; published May 11, 2006 (same-inventor Lemko foundational dMA application).
• Description: Lemko's core distributed-mobile-architecture disclosure: plural dMA nodes (each with a dMA server and BTS) interconnected over IP, switching calls at the edge of the network and reducing MSC backhaul, with gateway connectivity to legacy PSTN/IP/wireless networks. (I did not retrieve the full text in this session; the description is from the title, family data, and the shared Lemko specification lineage reflected in '409's own background section.)
• § 102 status: § 102(a) and § 102(b) art (published May 11, 2006, >1 year before July 11, 2008). Same inventor, so not § 102(e) art against '409.
• Potential anticipation: Not of claim 1 or claim 26 as granted, in my assessment, because the 2004-era foundational dMA application predates the OAMP-specific subject matter (master-agent performance collection from home and visitor dMA node groups, forwarding of visitor data to other dMAGs, per-node performance modules reporting to two dMAGs). It plausibly discloses the preamble architecture of both independent claims (dMA nodes, gateway to legacy networks, private IP interconnection, HLR/VLR-type registers). Treat it as background/combination art rather than a sole anticipatory reference. (Lower confidence: full text not retrieved.)

4. US 2006/0159039 A1 — "Method and system for providing private voice call service to mobile subscriber and wireless soft switch apparatus therefor"

• Full citation: Jung (Tae-Sung Jung); US 2006/0159039 A1; filed Dec. 21, 2004; published July 20, 2006 (per the Google Patents citation row and the Justia family listing, where it appears as "20060159039 | July 20, 2006 | Jung et al.").
• Description: Concerns provision of a private voice-call service to a mobile subscriber using a wireless soft-switch apparatus, i.e., integration of private/office wireless voice service with the public mobile network through soft-switch control (title-derived; full text not retrieved this session).
• § 102 status: § 102(a)/(b) art (published before July 11, 2007). Not by applicant.
• Potential anticipation: Based on the title/subject area alone, no full anticipation of claims 1 or 26 is apparent: it does not appear to disclose a dMA gateway/node architecture, master-agent performance monitoring, or dual-dMAG performance reporting. It may be relevant to legacy-network/private-network voice routing background. (Low confidence — full text not retrieved.)

5. US 2006/0234747 A1 — "System, method, and device for providing communications using a distributed mobile architecture"

• Full citation: Pan; Lemko Corporation; US 2006/0234747 A1; filed Apr. 13, 2005; published Oct. 19, 2006; granted as US 7,486,967 B2 (Feb. 3, 2009) (per the family record: "7486967 ... 2005-04-13 ... Lemko Corporation").
• Description: Another Lemko/Pan dMA application in the same family as reference 3, covering the distributed mobile architecture with node-level switching, community location registers, and gateway interconnection (full text not retrieved this session; description from title and family lineage).
• § 102 status: § 102(a)/(b) art (published before July 11, 2007). Same inventor — not § 102(e) art.
• Potential anticipation: Same assessment as reference 3: it predates the OAMP/master-agent/performance-forwarding features of claims 1 and 26 and should not be expected to fully anticipate either independent claim; useful for the dMA architectural preamble and as combination art. (Medium-low confidence — full text not retrieved.)

6. US 2007/0087738 A1 — "Communications network extension via the spontaneous generation of new cells"

• Full citation: Melkesetian (William Melkesetian); US 2007/0087738 A1; filed Oct. 17, 2005; published Apr. 19, 2007 (per the Google Patents citation row and the Unified Patents family record, which lists priority date 2005-10-16, assignee "Individual").
• Description: Discloses extending a cellular communications network by the spontaneous generation of new cells — transportable/auto-configuring base stations that self-organize and register into a macro network (title-derived and consistent with later cited-by context; full text not retrieved this session).
• § 102 status: § 102(a)/(b) art (published before July 11, 2007). Not by applicant.
• Potential anticipation: The concept of mobile/portable cells spontaneously registering into a network is conceptually related to the '409 roaming dMA-node concept (visitor dMA register), but nothing in the title suggests the OAMP performance-data collection/forwarding machinery of claims 1 or 26. No full anticipation of either independent claim expected; possible secondary relevance to node self-registration/roaming (the visitor-register concept in claim 1; claim 26's roaming scenario). (Low confidence — full text not retrieved.)

7. US 2007/0287452 A1 — "Roaming mobile subscriber registration in a distributed mobile architecture"

• Full citation: Pan; Lemko Corporation; US 2007/0287452 A1; Appl. 11/451,238; filed June 12, 2006; published Dec. 13, 2007 (also in family as granted US 9,253,622 B2, Feb. 2, 2016; and related US 8,224,322 B2).
• Description (partial full text retrieved): Discloses registration of roaming mobile subscribers within a network of distributed mobile architecture nodes. Key teachings: a dMA node may contain an MSC module and BSC module within one housing; a visitor location register (VLR) gateway at a dMA node stores identifiers (IMSI/ESN) of visiting mobile subscriber units with an address of the serving dMA node; routing requests from a wide-area wireless network's MSC consult the VLR gateway to identify the dMA node serving the roaming subscriber; home/community location register (HLR/CLR) records are distributed among dMA nodes; calls are switched locally via the IP-interconnected dMA network; self-healing redundancy re-routes traffic when a dMA fails.
• § 102 status: § 102(a) art (published Dec. 13, 2007, before the July 11, 2008 filing); not § 102(b) art (within one year of filing); same inventor, so not § 102(e) art.
• Potential anticipation: This is the closest Lemko prior art to the '409's register/routing concepts: it squarely addresses dMA-node-registered roaming subscribers, VLR/HLR handling at the dMA layer, and call routing from a legacy/wide-area network into a dMA network — overlapping with claim 1's visitor-register/temporary-routing functionality and the dMA-node architecture of claim 26. However, the '409 independent claims are directed to OAMP structures (master agent receiving performance data from each home and visitor dMA node; operations module forwarding visitor-node data to additional dMAGs; dMA-node performance module reporting to first and second dMAGs with home/visitor register status). Nothing in the retrieved portions of the '452 publication discloses that performance-management architecture; its VLR gateway is a mobility-registration element, not an OAMP master agent. Full anticipation of claim 1 or claim 26 is therefore unlikely; this reference is the strongest candidate for combination in an obviousness ground against the register/routing portions of claims 1 and 26 and against dependent claims directed to registration/roaming behavior. (Medium-high confidence on the register/routing overlap; high confidence that the retrieved text lacks the OAMP performance modules.)

8. US 2009/0186626 A1 — "Allocating Code Space to Base Stations"

• Full citation: Raghothaman; Airvana, Inc.; US 2009/0186626 A1; priority/filing date Dec. 21, 2007; published July 23, 2009 (per the Google Patents citation row; the Justia family listing likewise shows "20090186626 | July 23, 2009 | Raghothaman").
• Description: Concerns allocation of code space (e.g., CDMA/UMTS scrambling/code resources) to base stations — femto/pico access points — within a network (title-derived; full text not retrieved this session).
• § 102 status: Although its publication date (July 23, 2009) is after the '409 filing (July 11, 2008), its underlying U.S. application was filed Dec. 21, 2007 — before the '409 filing — and it is by another (Airvana), so it qualifies as § 102(e) prior art despite post-filing publication.
• Potential anticipation: Title-level content concerns radio-resource (code-space) allocation to individual base stations — a provisioning/resource-allocation concept tangentially related to claim 25 (provisioning module reserving resources based on performance data) and to the resource-reservation messaging in the published application's method claims (which were not carried into the granted claims). Nothing in the title suggests the dMAG/dMA-node register-and-performance-management structure of claims 1 or 26. No full anticipation of claims 1 or 26 expected; at most secondary art for resource-allocation/provisioning limitations. (Low confidence — full text not retrieved.)

Summary table

Key conclusions and caveats

1. None of the eight cited references, on the available evidence, fully anticipates either independent claim (1 or 26) when read as a whole, because the OAMP core — a master agent receiving performance data from home and visitor dMA-node groups, an operations module that stores local performance data and forwards visitor-group data to peer dMAGs over a private IP network (claim 1), and a dMA-node performance module reporting to two dMAGs while maintaining home-register status at the first and visitor-register status at the second (claim 26) — does not appear in any single cited document.

2. Reference 7 (US 2007/0287452 A1, Lemko/Pan, "Roaming mobile subscriber registration…") is the strongest cited art for the roaming/register/routing limitations and is the natural anchor for an obviousness combination against claims 1 and 26; note, however, that as same-inventor art it is available only under § 102(a) (not § 102(b) or § 102(e)).

3. Reference 8 (US 2009/0186626 A1, Airvana) is the only citation whose publication post-dates the '409 filing; it remains § 102(e) prior art because its application was filed Dec. 21, 2007 (before July 11, 2008) by a different entity.

4. Confidence disclosures: Full text was retrieved and reviewed only for references 1, 2, and 7 (partially). For references 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8, my descriptions rely on titles, bibliographic data, and the shared Lemko family lineage; anticipation conclusions for those are provisional and should be verified against the full documents (e.g., via USPTO Patent Center/PatFT, Google Patents, or Espacenet) before being relied upon in an invalidity analysis.

5. Practical next step for the USPTO record: pull the USPTO Patent Center file for 12/171,840 (patent 8,107,409) to confirm the examiner's actual "References Cited" (the eight analyzed here) and any PTO-1449/IDS-only references not reproduced in the Google Patents citation list.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,107,409 B2 ("OAMP for distributed mobile architecture")

Scope note: This builds on the earlier sections (bibliography, litigation, PTAB status). The PTAB record shows all 30 claims are untested — no IPR has been filed against this patent — so this is a forward-looking § 103 assessment, not a summary of any existing FWD. The prior-art pool analyzed here is the "Prior art" (Citations) block of the patent's Google Patents record, which lists eight examiner citations.

1. Legal framework and burden considerations

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and Graham v. John Deere, obviousness is assessed from: (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 in the art; and (4) objective indicia. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, a combination of known elements is obvious when a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine them with a reasonable expectation of success — explicit "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" language is not required, and common sense/design incentives can supply the rationale.

Priority-date window. The '409 patent has a single, clean priority date of July 11, 2008 (application US 12/171,840 filed the same day; no earlier US or foreign priority claim is recorded). Under pre-AIA § 102(a), any printed publication available before that date is prior art; publications before July 11, 2007 are additionally § 102(b) statutory bars. All examiner-cited Lemko publications and the Ibis and Melkesetian applications fall comfortably inside the § 102(a)/(b) window. The one exception to watch is Airvana (US 2009/0186626 A1), published July 23, 2009 — after the filing date — which is usable only via pre-AIA § 102(e) (its US filing date of Dec. 21, 2007 precedes the '409 filing date, and it is not commonly owned). I treat it as secondary support only.

A practical caveat for any ground built on the Lemko references: the three Lemko publications ('98661, '34747, '87452) are the same inventor's (Shaowei Pan) and assignee's own earlier work and are among the exact references the examiner had before him when the claims were allowed. An IPR petitioner can still rely on them (they are § 102(a) publications, not shielded by § 103(c), which covers only § 102(e)/(f)/(g) commonly-owned art), but a ground that adds nothing beyond the examiner's own references faces a credibility problem. The strongest § 103 story therefore pairs the Lemko architectural disclosures with third-party references that supply the missing OAMP/performance-management layer — Ibis and Melkesetian are the two that do that work here.

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA would be someone with a B.S./M.S. in electrical engineering, computer science, or telecommunications (or equivalent experience) and roughly 2–4 years working on cellular/wireless network architecture, IP networking, and network management. They would be fluent in: GSM/CDMA/ANSI-41 core-network concepts (MSC, BSC, BTS, HLR/VLR, registration, roaming), IP networking and tunneling, and standard FCAPS/OAMP network-management practice — including the SNMP manager/agent/MIB model, agent-subagent frameworks (e.g., AgentX), software distribution/upgrade mechanisms, performance monitoring, alarm/fault reporting, and resource provisioning. This profile matters: much of the OAMP machinery in the dependent claims is textbook network management, which a POSITA would supply as background knowledge even where no single reference spells it out.

3. Prior-art inventory (the eight examiner citations)

4. The claims in issue

The granted patent contains two independent claims:

• Claim 1 — a dMAG having: a data storage device; a legacy-network interface; a home dMA register (list of a first group of dMA nodes the dMAG is designated to serve); a visitor dMA register (list of a second, roaming group it temporarily serves); a master agent that receives performance data from each home and each visitor dMA node; and an operations module that (i) stores the performance data in the data storage device and (ii) sends visitor-node performance data to one or more additional dMAGs via a private IP network; with at least some routed calls traversing the legacy interface.
• Claim 26 — a dMA node with a private-IP data connection and a performance module that sends first performance data to a first dMAG when in its range and second performance data to a second dMAG when in the second dMAG's range; the node remains in the first dMAG's home register even while roaming, while appearing in the second dMAG's visitor register.

Claims 2–25 add conventional OAMP features: MIB with performance requirements (2); error-condition analysis vs. requirements and re-route messaging (3–6); plural performance metrics (7); sub-agent reporting to the master agent (8); SNMP (9) or AgentX (10); maintenance module distributing software updates and MIB backup (11–14); performance stored in MIB (15); legacy-network types (16); monitored components (17); GUI, including remote/Internet portal (18–22); master-agent querying (23); administration/billing (24); provisioning based on performance data (25). Claims 27–30 add node components, sub-agents monitoring them, configuration storage/receipt, and maintenance/software updates based on performance data.

The real "inventive" residue — and the only limitation that no single reference squarely teaches — is the performance-data plane: a master agent at a gateway collecting performance data from both home and visiting nodes, and an operations module that forwards the visiting node's performance data back toward the node's home dMAG (claim 1) / a node that reports performance to both its home dMAG and the visited dMAG while remaining in the home register (claim 26). Everything else is architecture and OAMP machinery that the cited art and POSITA background knowledge supply.

5. Primary combination — the dMA architecture ground

Ground A (structure): Lemko '98661 and/or '34747 (dMA servers with embedded MSC/BSC, edge switching, peer-to-peer IP transport) in view of Lemko '87452 (dMAG/VLR-gateway topology; home dMA nodes vs. roaming/visitor dMA nodes; HLR/VLR/CLR registration data per node; call routing to roaming subscribers).

Mapping to claim 1: the "legacy network interface" and routing of at least some calls via the legacy network is inherent in the dMAG/MSC-to-PSTN/PLMN connectivity of '98661/'34747/'87452 (and Jung '59039's soft-switch gateway is corroborative). The home dMA register ("first group ... designated to route calls") maps to '87452's home-node/HLR structure at the gateway; the visitor dMA register ("second group ... roaming ... temporarily route") maps directly to '87452's VLR-gateway/visitor-node registration, where a dMA node roams into a visited dMAG's territory and registers while its home association persists. That same disclosure maps claim 26's "included in the home dMA register of the first dMAG ... and in the visitor dMA register of the second dMAG."

The gap: '87452 moves registration/subscriber data between home and visited gateways; it does not disclose moving performance data, a master agent, or an operations module. Standing alone, Ground A does not render claims 1 or 26 obvious — it supplies perhaps 60–70% of the limitations.

6. Adding the OAMP layer — the decisive combinations

Combination 1 (recommended primary ground): Lemko '98661/'34747 + Lemko '87452 + Ibis '04097

What Ibis adds: an IP-connected distributed base-station architecture in which base stations connect to controllers over the Internet rather than dedicated backhaul, with an explicit operations-and-maintenance channel (~100 b/s reserved "for O&M messages"), a configuration manager that configures and authenticates each base station, remote/user setting of operating parameters, and automatic reconfiguration after connectivity loss. Ibis demonstrates that a POSITA building a distributed, IP-transported radio network would as a matter of course build in an O&M/configuration/management plane between the distributed radio elements and a central controller/gateway.

Why combine: The dMA references teach the transport and switching plane but, by their own admission (the '409 specification's Background), the OAMP services "should be capable of servicing the changing topology of the dMA network" — that is the exact problem Ibis solved for IP-connected base stations (management over the same IP fabric that carries traffic, with a controller-side manager and per-element configuration/O&M). A POSITA combining Lemko's dMAG+dMA-node topology with Ibis's O&M-over-IP teaching would have a reasonable expectation of success in placing the O&M function at the dMAG (the natural control point that already holds the registers) and equipping each dMA node with a reporting agent. The dMAG's master agent receiving performance data from each node is the straightforward application of Ibis's controller-manages-elements model to the dMA topology, and the data storage device + operations module storing the data is the equally conventional logging/FCAPS function.

Weakness to concede: Ibis does not teach forwarding visitor performance data to other (home) gateways. That limitation is driven by the roaming topology that only '87452 teaches; see Combination 2.

Combination 2 (primary ground for the forwarding/home-visitor limitation): Combination 1 + Melkesetian '87738

What Melkesetian adds: base stations that spontaneously and substantially automatically join a provider network, a provider-side controller that negotiates admission, monitors the unit, and remotely configures it (power/channel) — i.e., OAMP explicitly designed for a dynamically changing topology of portable, relocatable cells — with the portable unit reporting its status/location so the provider can track it.

Why combine — this is the crux of claim 1 and claim 26. Once a POSITA combines (i) Lemko's roaming dMA nodes that register with a visited dMAG while remaining home to their original dMAG ('87452), with (ii) the OAMP/performance-monitoring layer of Ibis and Melkesetian, the question "who is responsible for managing a node that has roamed out of its home dMAG's territory?" answers itself: the node's home operator must retain operational oversight of its own node, and the visited dMAG — which is physically receiving the node's performance reports — must return that data to the home dMAG over the private IP network so the home operator's operations module can store and act on it. Claim 1's "send the performance data from each dMA node of the second group ... to one or more additional dMAGs via a private IP network" is the minimal, obvious data-plane counterpart of the roaming-registration data plane already taught by '87452 (registration data flows homeward on roaming); performance data simply ride the same private-IP management path. Claim 26's dual reporting (to home dMAG and visited dMAG) is the node-side mirror of that same design, and its "remains in the home register while in the visitor register" is exactly '87452's home/visitor duality.

Motivation narrative (KSR-friendly, no hindsight): (1) The dMA network deliberately routes around the MSC backhaul and lets nodes roam between gateways; a node's home operator nonetheless needs fault/performance visibility (Ibis, Melkesetian both teach remote monitoring of IP-connected distributed cells); (2) the private IP network already interconnects dMAGs ('87452's multi-dMA network), so the transport for returning visitor-node data exists; (3) standard FCAPS practice is to keep operational data at the entity responsible for the element — here, the home dMAG — creating a design incentive to forward, not discard, visitor-node performance data; (4) SNMP/AgentX manager-subagent and MIB concepts (dependent claims 2, 8–10, 15) are the POSITA's default toolbox for exactly this master-agent/sub-agent reporting arrangement.

7. Dependent-claim treatment

With independent claims 1 and 26 addressed, the dependent claims are incremental and the least defensible against a § 103 attack, because each recites textbook OAMP functionality that the cited art or POSITA background supplies:

• Claims 2, 8–10, 15 (MIB, sub-agents, SNMP, AgentX): SNMP manager/agent/MIB is the standard management architecture of the era; AgentX (RFC 2741) is the standard sub-agent framework. No cited reference is needed beyond POSITA knowledge; Ibis's O&M channel and configuration manager corroborate that element-level management data was collected at a controller.
• Claims 3–6 (error-condition analysis vs. performance requirements; re-route message; technician/log): conventional FCAPS fault management; Melkesetian's loss-of-contact handling and Ibis's reconfiguration logic evidence the practice of detecting abnormal element state and acting (re-route is an obvious extension).
• Claims 11–14 (maintenance module distributing software; MIB backup): routine software-distribution/backup practice; Melkesetian's remote reconfiguration and the general need to update distributed base stations supply motivation.
• Claims 18–22 (GUI, including remote/Internet-portal access): obvious user-interface implementation for an OAMP console; GUI for administering a network was ubiquitous.
• Claim 24 (administration/billing): the dMA references' AAA modules and MSC usage tracking ('87452 discloses AAA; Nokia '308 discloses usage data collection from wireless elements) make billing generation at the gateway obvious.
• Claim 25 (provisioning based on performance data): reserving resources for a call path based on monitored performance is the standard motivation for collecting the performance data in the first place (the '409 specification's own provisioning module description); Ibis's bandwidth-reservation teaching (its claim 18 reserves Internet-link bandwidth based on user input) corroborates resource reservation in IP-connected base-station systems.
• Claims 27–30 (node components, sub-agents, configuration storage, maintenance updates): mirror of the dMAG-side claims; the node-side sub-agent/performance-reporting structure is the Ibis/Melkesetian element-agent applied to a Lemko dMA node, with configuration persistence being explicit in Ibis (stored parameters for auto-reconnect).

8. Honest counter-analysis — where the claims may survive

A balanced § 103 assessment must identify the genuine weaknesses of the combination case:

1. No reference discloses the specific "visitor-node performance data forwarded to the home dMAG" data flow. The combination case for that limitation rests on a design-inference argument (home-operator responsibility + existing private-IP interconnect) rather than an express disclosure. A patent owner would argue that the specific routing of performance, as opposed to registration, data homeward is a non-obvious insight — that the POSITA would more naturally have the visited dMAG manage the visitor node locally (as Ibis/Melkesetian manage their own elements) and would have no reason to send the data elsewhere.
2. The closest art is the applicant's own. The Lemko publications are the same inventor's and assignee's work; using them as the primary references invites a hindsight objection and lets the owner argue that the examiner already weighed exactly this art. The Ibis and Melkesetian additions are therefore essential, and neither alone is a dMA disclosure.
3. Melkesetian and Ibis manage stationary-ish consumer/pico cells, not nodes that roam between gateways while retaining a home-gateway relationship. The leap from "controller manages its own distributed cells" to "visited gateway forwards a roaming node's performance data to its home gateway" is the largest inferential step in the entire ground, and it is where the fight would be won or lost.
4. Dependent claims 9–10 (SNMP/AgentX) have no supporting citation in the record, so a petitioner would have to introduce the RFCs or a textbook as additional art — a straightforward but necessary supplementation.

9. Bottom line

Most probable § 103 story: The dMA node/gateway architecture, home/visitor register structure, and roaming topology of Lemko's own '98661/'34747/'87452 publications, when combined with the OAMP-for-IP-base-stations teachings of Ibis '04097 and the self-registering/remotely-managed portable-cell teachings of Melkesetian '87738, would have rendered claims 1 and 26 obvious: a POSITA implementing OAMP for a network whose nodes roam between gateways would place a master agent at the gateway (Ibis's controller model), have each node report performance (Ibis/Melkesetian element monitoring), and return visitor-node performance data to the home dMAG over the same private-IP management path used for registration data ('87452), so the home operator retains fault/performance visibility of its own roaming nodes. Independent claims 1 and 26 are the realistic targets; dependent claims fall with them or on their own as routine FCAPS implementation.

Overall confidence: moderate. The architecture is squarely in the prior art; the OAMP layer is textbook; but the one limitation that defines the invention as claimed — homeward forwarding of a visiting node's performance data — is not expressly disclosed in any single cited reference, and the § 103 case for it depends on a motivation/design-inference argument whose strength would ultimately be tested claim-by-claim in an IPR or Markman context. That is consistent with the strategic picture from the earlier sections: no petitioner has yet tried this ground, and given that all 30 claims remain untested, this combination is the most promising avenue for a defendant still inside its § 315(b) window.

Uncertainty flags: (1) I could not verify from available records whether the original US 2007/0287452 A1 publication (as opposed to its 2012-published continuation) itself contains the "OAMP module with per-component software agents" passage — the quote appears in the family continuation (US 2012/0252444 A1), which post-dates the '409 priority date and is not prior art; do not cite that passage against '409 without pulling the 2007 PDF. (2) Airvana '86626 is § 102(e)-only art (filed 2007-12-21, published 2009-07-23); it is peripheral here and should not be a primary reference. (3) All publication dates above are as listed in the Google Patents record; PACER/PatentCenter remain authoritative for the litigation posture.