US 8199747

I'll verify current status with a couple of searches, then summarize from the authoritative patent text provided.

Let me pin down the exact claim set, since I see conflicting excerpts.

US Patent 8,199,747 B2 — Analyst Summary

Identifier as given: 8,199,747 (granted as US8199747B2; published application US2009/0161665A1). I did not substitute or auto-correct this number. Note that many litigation/PTAB hits returned by search concern sibling patents in the same family — US 7,535,890, US 8,243,723, US 8,724,622 and US 8,995,433 — and should not be attributed to the '747 patent. I flag those separately below.

1. Bibliographic data (per the authoritative patent text supplied)

Assignment chain (from the Google Patents record): Ayalogic, Inc. → Empire IP LLC (2013-07-31) → Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (2016-06-10) → Uniloc 2017 LLC (2018-07-12). A security interest was also recorded to Fortress Credit Co LLC (2016-06-27).

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"There is provided an instant voice messaging system (and method) for delivering instant messages over a packet-switched network, the system comprising: a client connected to the network, the client selecting one or more recipients, generating an instant voice message therefor, and transmitting the selected recipients and the instant voice message therefor over the network; and a server connected to the network, the server receiving the selected recipients and the instant voice message therefor, and delivering the instant voice message to the selected recipients over the network, the selected recipients being enabled to audibly play the instant voice message."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The '747 patent has three independent claims — claims 1, 2 and 3 — all drafted as method claims. This is confirmed by the PTAB's own statement in IPR2017-01799 ("Of the challenged claims, claims 1-3 are independent") and by the full claim listing at Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/8199747). Claims 4–15 are dependent.

Claim 1 — "Record-and-attach messaging, with store-and-forward"
A method with four steps:

1. Generate an instant voice message — where "generating" specifically means recording the message into an audio file and attaching one or more files to that audio file;
2. Transmit the instant voice message, which has one or more recipients;
3. Receive an instant voice message when a recipient is available (i.e., the recipient is online, so delivery happens immediately); and
4. Receive a temporarily stored instant voice message when a recipient becomes available — the message having been temporarily stored because at least one recipient was unavailable.

In plain terms: the core is voice-message-with-file-attachments plus server-side store-and-forward — if a recipient is offline the message is parked and delivered on reconnection. Note the claim is drafted from two vantage points at once (the "generating/transmitting" steps read on the sender, while the two "receiving" steps read on the recipient), and it recites "an" instant voice message rather than "the" previously recited one — a point the petitioner in IPR2017-01799 expressly argued.

Claim 2 — "Presence list of nodes, then messaging"
A method that adds a presence/buddy-list front end:

1. Receive a list of nodes on the packet-switched network, the list including a connectivity status for each node (available / unavailable), each node being selectable as a recipient of an instant voice message;
2. Display that list of nodes;
3. Transmit the instant voice message having one or more recipients;
4. Receive an instant voice message when a recipient is available; and
5. Receive a temporarily stored instant voice message when a recipient becomes available (stored because at least one recipient was unavailable).

In plain terms: claim 2 is the "presence-aware IM-style contact list + voice message + store-and-forward" combination.

Claim 3 — "Mode selection based on recipient connectivity"
A method comprising:

1. Generating an instant voice message; and
2. Controlling a method of generating the instant voice message based upon a connectivity status [of] each recipient;
3. Transmit the instant voice message having one or more recipients;
4. Receive an instant voice message when a recipient is available; and
5. Receive a temporarily stored instant voice message when a recipient becomes available (stored because at least one recipient was unavailable).

In plain terms: claim 3 captures the patent's central record-mode/intercom-mode distinction — how you record depends on whether the recipient is currently reachable. The specific modes are then claimed dependently: claim 4 (record mode vs. intercom mode), 5 (record mode default when a recipient is unavailable), 6 (intercom mode default when recipients are available), 7 (record mode: record, generate stop indicator, then transmit), 8 (intercom mode: buffer successive portions and stream them), 9–11 (stop indicator on preset silence period, on a sensor detecting a recording-device position, and detecting when audio input has stopped). Claims 12–15 add: display-an-indication + play (claim 12, from claim 2); display indication, separate audio file from attachments, play (claim 13, from claim 1); and a record start signal, optionally an audio signal (claims 14–15, from claim 7).

Caveat: the full claim text above is drawn from the Justia claim listing and cross-checked against the RPX Insight entry and the PTAB IPR2017-01799 decision excerpt. The truncated Google Patents text supplied in my working materials cut off inside the Summary of the Invention and did not include the claims section, so I could not verify claim text against that document itself.

4. Disclosure in brief

The specification describes a local instant voice messaging ("IVM") system (FIG. 2: local IVM server 202, IVM clients 206/208, legacy telephone 110 via media gateway 114/legacy switch 112) and a global IVM system (FIG. 5: global IVM server system 502 with transport-server mesh 602 and directory server 608; FIG. 9: multiple local IVM systems). Two operating modes are described: "record mode" (record to audio file 210, finalize on a stop signal, then send) and "intercom mode" (buffer successive portions and transmit as buffers fill, for near-real-time delivery). Compression (preferably Lempel-Ziv; also MPEG, G.722, fractal, wavelet) and encryption (preferably AES/Rijndael; also DES, Triple DES, Blowfish, Twofish, Serpent) are described as applied at client or server. PSTN and VoIP-telephone capture paths are both supported.

5. Post-grant activity I could verify (and what I could not)

PTAB (per the Google Patents litigation record for US8199747B2):

• IPR2017-01257 — Facebook Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. et al., filed Apr. 7, 2017; institution denied Dec. 4, 2017 (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2017-01257).
• IPR2017-01799 — terminated (Google Patents labels it "Settlement"); the Board document titled "Termination Decision" also includes a final written decision caption and the "Illustrative Claims" section identifying claims 1–3 as independent.
• IPR2017-02085 — not instituted (merits).
• IPR2018-00748 — Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (petitioner also listed as WhatsApp), filed Mar. 6, 2018; procedural termination.
• IPR2017-01797 — [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. — petitioner's Exhibit 1043 is a copy of US8199747B2, indicating the '747 patent was in that proceeding as well.

District court: The '747 patent was one of five asserted in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Avaya, Inc., E.D. Tex. (lead case 2:16-cv-00777, filed July 15, 2016, Judge Rodney Gilstrap). It closed Feb. 13, 2024 by joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), each side bearing its own costs — no findings on infringement, validity or damages (https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/uniloc-v-avaya-multimedia-messaging-patent-infringement-dispute-patsnap/).

CAFC 2026 dockets: My searches surfaced no 2026 Federal Circuit docket naming 8,199,747. The only CAFC dockets tied to this patent family in the Google Patents record are 19-2165, 19-2166 and 19-2168 (2019 vintage). The prominent 2021 precedential decision Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., Nos. 19-1688/19-1689 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2021) (Chen, J.), affirming PTAB unpatentability findings, concerns US 8,995,433 — a different patent in the same family — not the '747 patent, and should not be cited as '747 authority.

Uncertainty I will not paper over: I cannot confirm from authoritative sources (a) the exact disposition of each listed IPR against the '747 patent's specific claims, (b) any 2026 CAFC activity, or (c) whether the 2025-09-24 "adjusted expiration" is a final maintenance-fee-based expiry. I also cannot independently verify the claim text against the full granted document beyond the sources cited above.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8199747. Let me run several searches.

Let me gather the district court case list and details.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747

Bottom line: Yes — U.S. 8,199,747 ("System and method for instant VoIP messaging," originally assigned to Ayalogic Inc., later Empire IP LLC → Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. → Uniloc 2017 LLC) was asserted extensively. Source data is drawn from Google Patents' family-litigation listing, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database patent page for 8199747, PACER-derived dockets (PatSnap Eureka), and PTAB records. All identifiers below are reproduced literally as found; I have not auto-corrected anything.

1. District court litigation (patent asserted / in suit)

The Google Patents family-litigation list for the '747 family shows numerous E.D. Tex. actions, and the Stanford NPE Database maps the following cases specifically to patent 8199747:

Avaya case detail (the best-documented outcome): The complaint asserted five patents — US8199747B2, US8243723B2, US8724622B2, US8995433B2, and US7535890B2. Uniloc's counsel included Paul J. Hayes; Avaya's counsel included Amr O. Aly, Gregory J. Apgar, and Michael E. Jones. The docket runs ~8 years from filing to the 2024 voluntary dismissal. The dismissal carries no findings on infringement, validity, or damages, and no settlement terms are in the public record. Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:16-cv-00777, Texas Eastern District Court (as reported by PatSnap Eureka).

Other E.D. Tex. case numbers appearing on the Google Patents family-litigation list (these are family-level entries and may cover sibling patents as well as the '747; verify each against the docket before relying on it):
2:16-cv-00639, 2:16-cv-00640, 2:16-cv-00641, 2:16-cv-00643, 2:16-cv-00644, 2:16-cv-00645, 2:16-cv-00694, 2:16-cv-00696, 2:16-cv-00722, 2:16-cv-00725, 2:16-cv-00728, 2:16-cv-00893, 2:16-cv-00989, 2:16-cv-00990, 2:16-cv-00991, 2:16-cv-00992, 2:16-cv-00993, 2:16-cv-00994, 2:17-cv-00231, 2:17-cv-00476, 2:17-cv-00483.

Caveat: The Uniloc cases against Microsoft (e.g., C.D. Cal. 8:18-cv-02053 and the consolidated 8:18-cv-02053/02054/02224, 8:19-cv-00196/00428/00477/00780/00781/00783/00955/00956/00988) asserted a chart of other patents (e.g., 7,016,676; 7,075,917; 8,706,636; 8,606,856; etc.). The '747 does not appear in the Microsoft status-report patent chart furnished, so I would not attribute those cases to the '747 without confirming the complaint.

2. PTAB (inter partes review) proceedings on the '747

Note: IPR2017-01799 later appears as the source of a decision "Denying Petitioner's Request for Rehearing and Amending Prior Decision," and a related IPR (IPR2017-01798) targeted sibling patent 8,724,622.

(I could not confirm a comprehensive list of every IPR naming the '747 — the records I retrieved show the four above. Treat this PTAB list as the set I could verify, not necessarily exhaustive.)

3. Federal Circuit appeals (CAFC)

The Google Patents family-litigation list shows three appeals tied to this family:

• 19-2165
• 19-2166
• 19-2168

PTAB/Samsung records link Appeal 2019-2165 to IPR2017-01799 (the '747 IPR). The other two appeal numbers are on the family list; whether each is specifically the '747 (versus a sibling patent) I could not confirm from the retrieved records.

Related but distinct Federal Circuit authority sometimes confused with this family: Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 966 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2020) — concerns U.S. 8,566,960, not the '747. It is frequently cited alongside the '747 Uniloc matters because it is the same patent owner (Uniloc 2017 LLC) and established that the PTAB may consider § 101 eligibility for proposed substitute claims in an IPR.

4. Notable points / limitations on this answer

• Ownership chain: Ayalogic Inc. → Empire IP LLC (July 31, 2013) → Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (June 10, 2016) → Uniloc 2017 LLC (July 12, 2018). Fortress Credit Co LLC holds a security interest (June 27, 2016).
• Patent status: Google Patents shows "Expired – Lifetime," expiration adjusted to 2025-09-24.
• Confidence level: Case numbers, PTAB numbers, petitioners, and the Avaya outcome are well-supported by the sources retrieved. Exact filing dates for the 2016/2017 E.D. Tex. cases are only partially confirmed (docket numbers imply 2016/2017); I did not retrieve a verified filing date for each. Where I state "2016"/"2017" in the table, treat that as the year indicated by the docket number pending docket confirmation.
• Not exhaustive: Aggregator pages (Stanford NPE DB, Google Patents family list) truncate some rows; I could not open every docket. If you need a court-ready, verified list, the authoritative step is to pull each PACER docket and the PTAB IPR docket for the four IPRs above.

I'll verify the PTAB proceedings against public sources, given the contradiction between the structured ODP block and the previously generated litigation section.

Now let me dig into the FWD outcome for IPR2017-01799, the joinder petition, and the Federal Circuit appeals.

AIA Trial Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747 ("System and method for instant VoIP messaging")

⚠️ Canonical-source discrepancy — flagged up front. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt (the USPTO Open Data Portal extract) states that the ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is flatly inconsistent with (a) the previously generated litigation section of this analysis, which identifies four IPRs, and (b) the primary PTAB documents I retrieved, which expressly self-identify as IPRs on U.S. 8,199,747. Per the operating rules, I am not auto-correcting identifiers, and I am not treating the ODP null result as dispositive of reality — but I also cannot silently overwrite it. My read: the ODP block reflects an ingest gap (or an ODP lookup keyed to a different application/patent record), not an absence of filings. Verify against PTAB E2E before relying on either the "zero proceedings" or the "four proceedings" figure in any filing. Everything below is grounded in documents I actually retrieved, with uncertainty marked.

Proceedings overview

Verified count: four AIA trial proceedings naming the '747 are visible in public records — breakdown: 1 instituted trial (FWD entered, later terminated on a settlement-type disposition), 2 institution denials on the merits, 1 procedurally terminated joinder petition (withdrawn), and 0 proceedings in which the public sources I could reach confirm claim cancellation. Bottom-line defensive posture: this is not a "claims 1–5 are already canceled" patent. The Board twice refused to institute Zydney-based challenges on § 103, and the single instituted Samsung trial (IPR2017-01799) ended in a settlement-labeled termination rather than a public, final, certified cancellation — so a defendant today gets no free knockout from the existing record, but does get a proved record that the core Zydney theory has failed at the institution stage. Caveat: I could not retrieve the claim-level disposition of the IPR2017-01799 Final Written Decision, so I do not state which (if any) claims were canceled. Do not assume cancellation; do not assume survival.

IPR2017-01799 — Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (later Uniloc 2017 LLC)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-07-20 (per PTAB E2E/National Law Review filing report)
• Status: Final Written Decision entered 2019-01-31; Google Patents tags the case as "(Settlement)"; the Docket Alarm index for this docket shows a "Termination Due to Settlement After Institution — Termination Due to Settlement After Institution of Trial" (P.T.A.B. 2020-07-21). It is not publicly confirmed as "claims invalidated."
• Judge panel: Jennifer S. Bisk, Miriam L. Quinn, and Charles J. Boudreau, Administrative Patent Judges. Boudreau authored the Final Written Decision. (Patexia case summary)
• Petition grounds: Claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 13 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Griffin in view of Zydney. Claim 2 is an independent claim; claim 1 is the other independent claim challenged. (Claims 3, 12, and 13 depend from claim 2.)
• Institution decision: Partially instituted / then expanded. Institution granted 2018-02-06, but only as to claims 2 and 12; the Board denied institution as to claims 1, 3, and 13, finding the petitioner had "not established sufficiently that the combination of Griffin and Zydney teaches or suggests" those claims (Paper 9 at 22). Following SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, the Board modified its Institution Decision "to institute on all of the challenged claims on the ground presented in the Petition" (Paper 16 at 2). The Board's reasoning on the claim 3 "controlling a method of generating [an] instant voice message based upon a connectivity status [of] each recipient" limitation — that the Petition failed to establish even prima facie obviousness, because "whether the pack and send mode is mandatory or simply optional... does not change how the instant voice message is generated in the pack and send mode" — was reproduced in the parties' subsequent briefing (citations: IPR2017-01799, Paper 9 at 33; accord IPR2017-02085, Paper 11 at 26).
• Final Written Decision (if issued): An FWD was entered 2019-01-31 (35 U.S.C. § 318(a)). ⚠️ I could not retrieve the FWD text at claim-level granularity, so I will not state which of claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 13 were held unpatentable and which (if any) were sustained. Indirect signal only: the docket shows a "DECISION Denying Petitioner's Request for Rehearing and Amending Prior Decision", i.e., the petitioner sought rehearing (typically a signal the petitioner did not fully prevail) and the panel amended its prior decision. Treat the claim-level verdict as unverified pending retrieval of the FWD.
• Settlement / termination: The docket index records termination due to settlement on 2020-07-21, consistent with the Google Patents "(Settlement)" tag. Terms are not in the public record — assume confidential. (Note the procedural oddity: a settlement termination after an FWD — resolve this by pulling the actual papers.)
• Appeal: Yes — Appeal No. 2019-2165, linked to this IPR in the Samsung-side records. The issues on appeal and the disposition are not confirmed in the sources I retrieved; given the 2020-07-21 settlement termination, the appeal was very likely dismissed/mooted by settlement rather than decided on the merits. Unverified.
• Defensive value: Samsung (and its RPI/privies) is estopped under § 315(e)(2) as to the ground it raised or reasonably could have raised on the claims that went to the FWD — i.e., the Griffin+Zydney § 103 combination is burned for Samsung but remains available to an unrelated defendant. The absence of a public claim cancellation means you cannot build a defense on "the '747 is already dead."

Sources: PTAB E2E document repository (petition ID 1557278 — rehearing decision, link); Patexia docket summary; National Law Review PTO Litigation Report, 2017-07-21 (filing record).

IPR2017-01257 — Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. (et al.)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-04-07
• Status: Decision Denying Institution — 2017-12-04 (Paper 8). Google Patents tags the case "Not Instituted – Merits."
• Judge panel: Not confirmed in the sources retrieved.
• Petition grounds: § 103 challenge to claim 1, with Zydney asserted as teaching the disputed limitations. (Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "receiving a list of nodes within the packet-switched network, the list of nodes including a connectivity status of each node, said connectivity status being available and unavailable... displaying said list of nodes.")
• Institution decision: Denied on 2017-12-04. The Board was "not persuaded that the petitioner... had established sufficiently that Zydney teaches or suggests 'attaching one or more files to the audio file,' as recited in claim 1." The panel agreed with the patent owner that the Zydney passages relied on "instead disclose attaching additional files (e.g., a multimedia file) to a voice container, rather than to an audio file as recited in claim 1." Critically, the panel held: "Even if we regard Zydney's voice data as being an audio file... we are not persuaded that Zydney's disclosure that another file may be attached to a voice container that contains such an audio file teaches or suggests attaching that other file to the audio file." (1257 DI 18–19.) This reasoning was later applied against a subsequent petitioner defending an anticipation theory on claim 1 ("That conclusion applies a fortiori in this case, where Petitioner is alleging Zydney anticipates claim 1.").
• Final Written Decision: N/A — trial never instituted.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: None — an institution denial is not appealable (§ 314(d), and the Board's reasoning here is a merits-based institution call).
• Defensive value: High value for a defendant even though Facebook lost. The denial is a public, citable Board finding that Zydney does not teach "attaching one or more files to the audio file." If the patent owner's assertion rests on claim 1, you have Board-authored claim-construction-adjacent reasoning to deploy. No estoppel attaches to Facebook from a denial of institution (estoppel requires a FWD).

IPR2017-02085 — Google Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-09-11 (per the National Law Review PTO Litigation Report — September 12, 2017, listing petitioner Google Inc., Tech Center 2600, patent 8,199,747, patent owner Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.)
• Status: Decision Denying Institution (Paper 11). Google Patents tags the case "Not Instituted – Merits."
• Judge panel: Not confirmed in the sources retrieved.
• Petition grounds: § 103; the Board's denial addressed, among other limitations, the claim 3 "controlling a method of generating [an] instant voice message based upon a connectivity status [of] each recipient" limitation.
• Institution decision: Denied on the merits. The Board's denial is cited at p. 19 and p. 26 and, on the "controlling" limitation, mirrors IPR2017-01799: the petition failed to establish even prima facie obviousness because "whether the pack and send method is mandatory or simply optional may determine whether or not the pack and send mode is used, but this determination does not change how the instant voice message is generated in the pack and send mode."
• Final Written Decision: N/A.
• Settlement / termination: N/A.
• Appeal: None (non-appealable institution denial).
• Defensive value: Second public Board rejection of the same art family on the merits. Combined with IPR2017-01257, a defendant has two institution-stage merits wins for the patent owner's side on the record. That cuts both ways: it raises the bar for an IPR-based defense (the Board has twice declined to even try the Zydney-centric theory). No estoppel (denials do not estop).

IPR2018-00748 — Facebook, Inc. et al. (including WhatsApp) v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. et al.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (petition filed together with a motion for joinder to IPR2017-01799)
• Filed: 2018-03-06
• Status: Terminated — procedurally (termination date 2018-09-07). Google Patents tags it "Procedural Termination."
• Judge panel: Not confirmed.
• Petition grounds: Joinder petition; grounded in the art already instituted in the target IPR. (Companion petition IPR2018-00747 was handled on the same track.)
• Institution decision: None issued — the petition was withdrawn before institution. Following an August 10, 2018 Board conference call addressing the impact of SAS Institute v. Iancu on joinder petitions seeking to join on fewer than all instituted claims, the Board "expressed the view that a petitioner cannot join fewer than all instituted claims" and asked the petitioners to elect. By email dated 2018-08-15, counsel for Facebook and WhatsApp (Phillip Morton) advised the Board: "In view of the Board's position regarding the SAS decision, Facebook and WhatsApp notify the Board that they elect to withdraw their petitions in IPR2018-00747 and IPR2018-00748."
• Final Written Decision: N/A.
• Settlement / termination: Withdrawal by petitioner prior to institution; the proceeding terminated 2018-09-07. (This is a withdrawal, not a party settlement of a merits dispute.)
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Low as a merits defense — but note the date. Facebook/WhatsApp walked away rather than accept full-scope joinder, meaning the § 103 ground against these claims was never adjudicated for them and no estoppel attached. If you are a defendant in the Facebook/WhatsApp/Meta corporate orbit today, this is good news on estoppel (grounds remain open to you) but bad news on precedent (you get no free invalidating judgment).

Sources: ipverse/GreyB case page for IPR2018-00748 (filed 2018-03-06; terminated 2018-09-07; petitioner counsel Heidi Keefe; patent owner counsel Ryan Loveless); PTAB E2E petition ID 1508317 (the 2018-08-15 withdrawal email and the August 10, 2018 conference-call record).

Further proceeding(s) I could see but could NOT confirm — flagged, no number invented

PTAB documents (petition IDs 1508317 / 1508318 on PTAB E2E) show an additional joinder petition challenging claims 2 and 12 of the '747 under § 103 over Griffin in view of Zydney, filed together with a motion to join IPR2017-01799, by a petitioner that had previously challenged the same claims using the same Zydney reference but substituting U.S. Patent No. 6,750,881 to Barry Appelman ("Appelman") for Griffin. That same document lists the '747 challenges as: Facebook (IPR2017-01257), Samsung (IPR2017-01799), and Google (IPR2017-02085), and separately references LG Electronics, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA, IPR2017-02087 and an Apple Inc. proceeding on the '723 sibling. I could not confirm the proceeding number, the petitioner identity, or the outcome of this joinder petition from the records retrieved. I am deliberately not assigning it a number. It must be run down on PTAB E2E — it is the single largest open item in this analysis.

Strategic summary

Which claims are canceled, sustained, or untested. On the public record I retrieved, no claim of the '747 has been confirmed as canceled by an IPR Final Written Decision, and none has been confirmed as sustained either. The claim set that has been tested at the petition stage is claims 1, 2, 3, 12, and 13 (claims 1 and 2 independent; 3, 12, 13 dependent). Of that set: claims 1, 3, and 13 were the subject of a denied-institution merits ruling in IPR2017-01799 (later expanded to all challenged claims post-SAS); claim 1 was separately the subject of the denied IPR2017-01257; claims 2 and 12 were the instituted claims in IPR2017-01799 and were also re-challenged in the unconfirmed joinder petition; and claim 3's "controlling ... based upon a connectivity status" limitation drew an affirmative no-prima-facie-obviousness finding in both IPR2017-01799 and IPR2017-02085. The claim-level FWD verdict in IPR2017-01799 is unverified — do not write "canceled" or "sustained" into anything until you pull it. Because the patent expired 2025-09-24 (adjusted expiration), the practical significance of the surviving-claim question is now damages/back-damages for already-accrued conduct, not prospective injunctive exposure.

Estoppel landscape. Estoppel under § 315(e)(2) attaches only to a petitioner (and its real parties in interest and privies) that obtained a Final Written Decision. That means: Samsung is the only party clearly estopped here, and only as to the claims that reached the FWD and the Griffin + Zydney § 103 ground it raised or reasonably could have raised. Facebook, WhatsApp, and Google face no IPR estoppel because their petitions died at institution or by withdrawal. For a defendant currently being asserted against (other than Samsung): the Zydney-centered art, the Griffin/Zydney combination, the Appelman-based alternative combination, and any § 102 anticipation theory remain live — indeed the Board's own reasoning in IPR2017-01257 and IPR2017-02085 shows where the art has failed, which is useful for engineering a different combination or a different primary reference. Watch the family-level estoppel spillover: the Federal Circuit's joinder-estoppel line (Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., No. 2019-1688 (Fed. Cir. 2021), on the sibling '433 patent — not the '747) holds that a joined party is estopped only as to the ground it could have raised in the proceeding it joined, and that § 315(e) does not estop a joined party on claims it could not have challenged there. That case is frequently cited alongside the '747 matters because it is the same patent owner, and it is directly relevant if the IPR2017-01799 joinder petition matures.

Pattern signals. The picture is of a mass-serial-attack family that produced mixed results. Multiple unrelated petitioners (Facebook, Samsung, Google, plus at least one unconfirmed joinder petitioner, with Apple and LG attacking siblings) filed within months of each other in 2017 — the classic post-assertion NPE-defensive wave triggered by the Uniloc E.D. Tex. campaign. The patent owner (Uniloc/Uniloc 2017) pursued rehearing and appeals aggressively (the docket shows both an FWD rehearing request and Appeal 2019-2165, with 19-2166 and 19-2168 also flagged on the family list). Notably, the same Zydney reference did invalidate the sibling patents — the Board's 2019-01-31 FWD in IPR2017-01797/IPR2017-01798 (Samsung v. Uniloc 2017, U.S. 8,724,622) held all challenged claims unpatentable over Griffin and Zydney, and Facebook's FWDs on the '433 patent did the same. The '747 is the outlier in its own family — the one where two petitions were bounced at institution. No defensive aggregator appears in the PTAB chain on the '747 itself (Unified Patents appears in the district-court litigation list, not as a '747 petitioner on the record I retrieved). Finally, the patent's assertion life is at an end: the Avaya action was dismissed with prejudice on 2024-02-13, and the patent expired 2025-09-24.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the IPR2017-01799 Final Written Decision (2019-01-31) from PTAB E2E and read the claim-level disposition page by page. This is the single missing fact that determines the defensive posture. Quote the disposition verbatim before citing it — including whether the post-SAS expansion to claims 1 and 3 produced cancellations.
2. Resolve the post-FWD settlement termination. Retrieve the 2020-07-21 termination paper and confirm whether the FWD's result survived, was vacated, or was mooted by the Appeal No. 2019-2165 disposition. Also check whether the appeal was dismissed by settlement (likely) or decided.
3. Retrieve the full denials for IPR2017-01257 (Paper 8, 2017-12-04) and IPR2017-02085 (Paper 11) — these are the patent owner's two merits wins and are the strongest citable material a defendant has. Link/quote the "attaching one or more files to the audio file" and "controlling ... based upon a connectivity status" passages.
4. Identify and docket the unconfirmed joinder petition (Griffin + Zydney on claims 2 and 12). Search PTAB E2E by patent number for all 2018 filings; if it issued an FWD, it creates a second estoppel party.
5. Confirm the CAFC appeals for the family: 19-2165 (linked to IPR2017-01799), 19-2166, and 19-2168. Search CourtListener for each docket; do not attribute 19-1688 or 19-2162 (the '433 and related sibling appeals) to the '747 without confirming the patent-at-issue from the opinion caption.
6. No PTAB activity would, if it were true, be its own signal — but my retrieval contradicts the ODP block, so treat the ODP null result as unreliable for this patent and verify by patent number directly in PTAB E2E before making any representation about the absence of proceedings.

I'll research the assignment record for US 8,199,747. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and correspondents.

I hit the research-tool step limit, so the below is built from the sources already retrieved (the authoritative patent text you supplied, the Google Patents legal-events list, IPR file histories surfaced in the searches, and Plainsite/Uniloc assignment documents). I have flagged every reel/frame and date I could not independently verify rather than guessing.

Assignment record — U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747

Important sourcing note: I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center UI directly during this run. The reel/frame numbers below are drawn from assignment data quoted inside PTAB and district-court filings for this patent family (which cite the USPTO record verbatim), plus the Google Patents legal-events list for US8199747B2. The Assignment Center page is the controlling source; verify each line there: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 8199747). Where the retrieved record showed the family connection but not the number personally, I say so.

Inventors

• The original inventor→company assignment of record is Rojas, Michael J. → Ayalogic, Inc., recorded at Reel 014827 / Frame 0059 (per the chain-of-title statement reproduced in IPR2017-01798, Exhibit 1021, for sibling patent 8,724,622 — same family, same assignment of record).
• Execution and recording dates for that reel are not shown in the retrieved record. I did not confirm a 12-month inventor-departure pattern; the retrieved Apple venue-motion exhibits reference inventor LinkedIn profiles, but those attach to other Uniloc patents, not the '747, so I do not attribute them here.
• No second inventor appears, so there is no internal signature to compare against.

Original assignee

• Ayalogic, Inc. — named on the issued patent (Google Patents lists the original assignee as Ayalogic, Inc.; the issued '747 and its siblings 8,724,622 and 8,995,433 were all originally Ayalogic property).
• Line of business: Ayalogic was an IP-telephony/VoIP messaging venturer; the patent's own specification describes a commercial "instant voice messaging" softphone/server product line (VoIP softphone, VoIP telephone, media-gateway/PSTN integration).
• Did they ship a product? The specification is written as a product architecture (client engine, IVM server, gateway manager, DHCP/TFTP/HTTP sub-systems), which is consistent with a real product effort, but I could not retrieve a reliable record confirming commercial shipments, and I will not assert one.
• Current status: Ayalogic ceased to be the owner via the 2013 transfer to Empire IP (below). I could not verify whether Ayalogic was dissolved, wound down, or acquired, and I found no evidence of a bankruptcy sale in the retrieved records. Treat "defunct operating company" as an inference only — unconfirmed here.

Assignment timeline

Chronological. Where the USPTO reel/frame was quoted inside a filing, I cite it; where only the Google Patents legal event exists, I say "reel/frame not retrieved."

1. ~2003 (executed) / recorded date not retrieved — Reel 014827 / Frame 0059

• Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
• Assignor: Rojas, Michael J. (inventor)
• Assignee: Ayalogic, Inc.
• Correspondent: Not shown in the retrieved document.
• Context: Standard inventor-to-startup assignment at formation.

2. ~2013-07 (executed) / recorded 2013-07-31 — Reel 030922 / Frame 0335

• Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
• Assignor: Ayalogic, Inc.
• Assignee: Empire IP LLC (addresses of record: 815 Brazos Street, Suite 500, Austin, TX 78701, and 212 East 47th Street, Ste. 24J, New York, NY 10017)
• Correspondent: Not retrieved. Note that comparable Empire IP recordings the same week (e.g., the Bell→Empire IP assignment, executed 2013-07-15, recorded 2013-07-31) show Empire IP as a high-volume acquirer, so this link is part of a bulk portfolio purchase from Ayalogic.
• Context: Fire-sale / portfolio divestiture by the original operating company to a patent-monetization entity.
  (Reel/frame 030922/0335 is the family chain entry reproduced in IPR2017-01798 Ex. 1021. I flag that the same exhibit's OCR shows the Ayalogic→Empire leg in the 030922 range; verify against the Assignment Center for the '747 specifically.)

3. 2016 (executed) / recorded 2016-06-10 — reel/frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
• Assignor: Empire IP, LLC
• Assignee: Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (registered office of record, per the 2018 Uniloc assignment: 14, rue Edward Steichen, L-2540 Luxembourg; earlier filings show 15 Rue Edward Steichen)
• Correspondent: Not retrieved for this specific reel. Uniloc's recurring recording/signing attorney on the family is Sean D. Burdick (USPTO Reg. No. 51,513), IP Counsel and later President & General Counsel of Uniloc USA, Inc. (Plano, TX). Flag: Burdick recurs across the Uniloc chain and across unrelated Uniloc patents (e.g., 8,872,646; 8,539,552; 7,535,890).
• Context: Transfer to asserter — this is the acquisition that precedes the 2016 Uniloc assertion campaign.

4. 2016 (executed) / recorded 2016-06-27 — reel/frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: Security Interest / Security Agreement (not a transfer of title)
• Assignors: Uniloc Corporation Pty Limited, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., Uniloc USA, Inc.
• Assignee/Secured Party: Fortress Credit Co LLC
• Correspondent: Not retrieved.
• Context: Securitization — a lender's blanket security interest over the Uniloc entity group's patent assets, taken ~17 days after the Empire→Uniloc assignment. Fortress Credit is a creditor of record, not an owner of the '747.

5. 2018-05-03 (executed) / recorded 2018-07-12 — reel/frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: Patent Assignment (transfer of all right, title, interest, including the right to sue for past, current, and future infringement)
• Assignor: Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (société anonyme, R.C.S. Luxembourg B 159161)
• Assignee: Uniloc 2017 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
• Correspondent: Not retrieved. The recorded instrument (reproduced in the Apple N.D. Cal. filing, 3:18-cv-00360, Dkt. 135-15) includes an attorney-in-fact clause empowering the assignee to perfect the transfer — typical of an intra-group NPE re-papering.
• Context: Internal reorg / transfer-to-asserter (same Uniloc control group).

Current owner of record (per Google Patents legal events): Uniloc 2017 LLC, as of the 2018-07-12 recording. Patent status: Expired – Lifetime, adjusted expiration 2025-09-24.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8199747
    2003 : Filed by inventor Rojas
         : Assigned to Ayalogic Inc
    2012 : Patent issued
    2013 : Assigned to Empire IP LLC
    2016 : Assigned to Uniloc Luxembourg SA
         : Fortress Credit security interest
    2018 : Assigned to Uniloc 2017 LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
The chain moves the '747 out of an operating VoIP company (Ayalogic, Inc.) into a licensing-vehicle named "Empire IP LLC" (reel 030922/0335, recorded 2013-07-31), then upward into Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc 2017 LLC. "Empire IP LLC" carries the "IP" suffix and its disclosed addresses (815 Brazos St., Austin; 212 E. 47th St., New York) are correspondence/agent-style addresses, not plant addresses. The 2016 Uniloc acquisition and the 2018 Uniloc 2017 LLC naming both fit the single-purpose-holding-company pattern.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
The current assignee is Uniloc 2017 LLC, and Uniloc USA, Inc. / Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. appear as plaintiffs/patent owners throughout the E.D. Tex. campaign and the PTAB dockets on this family. Uniloc is a well-documented high-frequency patent asserter. Empire IP LLC is likewise a serial acquisition/monetization entity (a Plainsite profile lists Empire IP holding 7,535,890 and 8,199,747 among many others).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — PRESENT (with a caveat).
Sean D. Burdick, Reg. No. 51,513 (Uniloc USA, Inc., Plano, TX) recurs as the signing/recording attorney across the Uniloc links of this chain and across unrelated Uniloc patents — e.g., the powers of attorney and 3.73 statements for 8,872,646, 7,535,890, 8,539,552, and the 12/723,750 conference-call family. The caveat is the rule you gave: I have the name and role, but I could not map Burdick to a specific reel/frame on the '747's own assignment records; the recurrence is established from family and sibling-patent filings. Treat this as a strong lead, not a reel-cited proof. (Litigation-side Uniloc counsel Ryan Loveless / Etheridge Law Group also recur across the Uniloc IPRs, but those are counsel appearances, not assignment correspondents.)

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT.
Two title transfers through controlled NPE entities inside ~25 months: Empire IP LLC → Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (recorded 2016-06-10) → Uniloc 2017 LLC (executed 2018-05-03, recorded 2018-07-12), with a Fortress Credit security interest layered in between on 2016-06-27.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT.
The Empire IP → Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. assignment was recorded 2016-06-10, and the Uniloc E.D. Tex. complaints in the '747 family bear 2016 docket numbers (e.g., 2:16-cv-00731, -00777, -00892). The 2016 acquisition therefore sits immediately ahead of the assertion wave, consistent with chain-tidying to establish clean standing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — UNCLEAR.
The 2013 Ayalogic → Empire IP transfer has the shape of a distressed sale, but I retrieved no evidence that Ayalogic entered Chapter 7/11 or that the patents were sold in a bankruptcy proceeding. Not charged as a finding.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
No operating company is using the '747 to sue its own competitors on its behalf; the asserters are standalone Uniloc entities. The 2016 onward campaign is direct NPE assertion, not privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at Uniloc 2017 LLC, an active asserter, not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Three strong signals converge: (i) shell-entity/fire-sale transfer of the patent out of the operating company Ayalogic, Inc. to the licensing vehicle Empire IP LLC (reel 030922/0335, recorded 2013-07-31); (ii) a known asserter as current owner — Uniloc 2017 LLC, with Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. as the family's plaintiffs across the 2016 E.D. Tex. campaign and the PTAB dockets; and (iii) pre-litigation timing — the Empire→Uniloc assignment recorded 2016-06-10 sits directly ahead of the 2016 suits. The cascading Empire IP → Uniloc Luxembourg → Uniloc 2017 transfers (2016-06-10 and 2018-07-12) and the intervening Fortress Credit Co LLC security interest (2016-06-27) reinforce a portfolio-monetization structure rather than an operating-company assertion.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search patent number 8199747. (Same records surface at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.)

Cross-references used: Google Patents legal events for US8199747B2; PTAB IPR2017-01798 Ex. 1021 chain-of-title statement (reels 014827/0059 and 030922/0335); PTAB IPR2018-00289 and IPR2017-01802 powers of attorney (Sean D. Burdick, Reg. 51,513); Uniloc Luxembourg → Uniloc 2017 LLC assignment instrument reproduced at Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., N.D. Cal. 3:18-cv-00360, Dkt. 135-15/135-21.

Known gaps (stated plainly): execution/recording dates for the inventor→Ayalogic reel (014827/0059); the reel/frame numbers for the Empire→Uniloc (2016) and Uniloc Luxembourg→Uniloc 2017 (2018) recordings; the assignment correspondents on the Empire IP-side recordings; and Ayalogic's post-2013 corporate status. If you need the reel/frame-cited version, these four items are what a direct Assignment Center pull would close.

I'll research this. Let me start with several searches on the specific patent number and its cited references.

The searches so far returned "cited by" references. I need the actual "References Cited" (prior-art) section of the '747. Let me target that directly.

Prior Art for U.S. Patent No. 8,199,747 — Search Results and § 102 Assessment

Method note / disclosure of limits. I ran targeted searches against Google Patents, USPTO-derived mirrors (uspto.report, Justia Patents), and PTAB docket material for the literal string 8199747. Two of my four second-round queries were cut off by a tool step-limit, so this answer is built on: (a) the OCR of the actual granted front page of US008199747B2 as reproduced in PTAB Exhibit 1043 of IPR2017-01797; (b) sibling-patent citation lists; and (c) PTAB petition exhibit lists. I did not succeed in opening the full USPTO PatentCenter PDF of the '747, and I could not retrieve the abstract/claim text of most cited references. Accordingly, every "brief description" and "claim mapping" below is flagged as verified, inferred, or unknown — I have not filled gaps with invention.

1. Important distinction: two different things are called "citations" for this patent

Separately, post-grant (IPR) art is a third category — see § 4.

2. References Cited on the face of US 8,199,747 B2

Source: the granted patent as reproduced at http://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-01797/Samsung_Electronics_America_Inc._v._Uniloc_Luxembourg_S.A/docs/08-24-2018-Petitioner/Exhibit-1043-Exhibit_1043.pdf. Field of search class codes shown where the OCR preserved them; an asterisk on a U.S. front page conventionally denotes examiner-cited art (flagged as my interpretation).

Brief descriptions: I could not retrieve the abstract of most of these references, so I will not guess at their subject matter beyond what the record itself supplies. What the record does show:

• The two examiner-cited items with classification codes (#4 Vaananen at 455/413 = voice/message storage-and-retrieval; #8 Dahod at 455/426.1 = radiotelephone/wireline-network coupling; #16 DePietro at 370/328 = wireless packet network) indicate the examiner was working in the voice-messaging-over-mobile/packet-network art, i.e., the same conceptual space as the '747's "record mode."
• The 2006–2008 items (#12–#16) are consistent with art cited against the buffer/"intercom mode" concept (compare the '490/'622 family, whose claims recite "a client platform generating one or more buffers… transmitting the contents of a buffer… once the contents of the buffer have reached a predetermined size"). I flag that as inference, not verified.

Caveat on this table: the OCR of the '747 front page is degraded (inverted digits, e.g. 2004/3252679 for 2004/0252679; Vanea for Vaananen; Holtowell/Holtowell vs Hollowell; Gierachf). Per your strict rule I have not silently corrected them — the normalized readings are flagged parenthetically. The authoritative step is to pull item (56) from USPTO PatentCenter for 12/398,076.

3. Non-patent literature cited in the family

From the IDS filed Aug. 19, 2004 in the parent application 10/740,030 (file history of US 7,535,890, submitted as Exhibit 1016 in IPR2017‑00225):

1. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/nemnsw/callmn/prodlit/cm33—ds.htm — "Data Sheet Cisco CallManager Version 3.3"
2. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps1925/products—data—sheet—09186—a00800a3c3d.html — "Data Sheet Cisco MGX 8000 Series"
3. http://www.hsteliann.com/english/?zone=3100-V21P — "Teliphone 3100-V21P"
4. http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT5199947519.html — "Device Profile: …"
5. http://www.pingtel.com/pr—xpressa.jsp — Pingtel Xpressa
6. AudioCodes "Enabling Technology Products, TPM-1100 VoIP Media Gateway Modules"

These are § 102(b)/§ 103 printed-publication-adjacent art (product data sheets) aimed at the hardware context (IP PBX, media gateways, IP phones). Because the IDS was filed Aug. 19, 2004 — after the 12/18/2003 filing date — their qualification as prior art turns on their publication dates, which I did not verify.

Also of record: the examiner's own search strings from the PTO‑892 for appl. 10/740,030, e.g. instant adj voice adj messag$3 with (internet or packet-switch$3 or packet adj switch$3) and (@ad<=”20031218”) — confirming the examiner treated 2003‑12‑18 as the critical date.

4. Prior art relied on in post-grant proceedings (not on the front page)

These IPR references are the most technically on-point art for the '747, but they were not cited during prosecution — they were found by petitioners in 2017–2018.

5. § 102 analysis — which references can actually reach which claims

(a) Critical date / priority — flag a discrepancy. Google Patents and the '747 specification state the parent (10/740,030) was filed Dec. 18, 2003, and Google Patents lists prior-art date 2003-12-18. However, the Unified Patents portal entry for US‑8199747‑B2 lists the priority date as 2003‑12‑17. These conflict; I reproduced both literally. This one-day gap does not change any § 102 outcome below, but it should be resolved from the assignment/priority documents.

Consequences of a valid 12/18/2003 priority date (pre-AIA applies):

• § 102(b) bar date = Dec. 18, 2002. Only the 2003 publications (#2, #3) and the family's 2001–2002 NPL fall on the near side.
• § 102(a) captures the 2003 publications (#2 Sagi, #3 Creamer).
• § 102(e) can reach the 2004–2005 publications (#1, #4–#11) only if their underlying U.S. applications were filed before the Rojas invention date — I did not verify those filing dates.
• The 2006–2008 items (#12–#16) are very likely NOT prior art at all if the 12/18/2003 benefit claim is valid, because their applications could not have been filed before Dec. 18, 2003. That the examiner nonetheless listed #16 DePietro (2008) as examiner-cited suggests either (i) the examiner considered some claims not entitled to the parent's date, or (ii) it was cited for background/§ 103 context. This is the single most important vulnerability/defense question about the '747's prosecution, and it is the same issue the 2017–2018 IPRs probed. Note the previously generated litigation summary records that IPR2017‑01799 reached a Final Written Decision on claims 1–3, 12, 13 — consistent with priority being contested.

(b) Claim mapping. I must flag that the claims section was truncated in the authoritative text I was given, and the examiner's per-claim rejections are not printed on the front page. From the claim-shaped language preserved in the record (the "Definitions" block enumerating the base system, the PSTN-support system, the VoIP-telephone system, the multi-network systems, and their method counterparts), the '747 appears to claim, in substance:

Anticipation vs. obviousness caution: § 102 anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element of the claim as arranged. On the record I retrieved, only Zydney is clearly placed in a § 102(b)/single-reference posture (and even then the Board's ground was obviousness over Zydney + Griffin). The prosecution-stage references read to me like § 102(e)/§ 103 art and background art rather than clean anticipatory references — but that is my assessment, not a verified examiner position, because the front page does not state claim-by-claim applications.

6. Contradictions with the previously generated section (as required)

1. IPR2017‑01799 status. The prior litigation section states it was instituted Feb. 6, 2018 with a Final Written Decision Jan. 31, 2019. The Google Patents family-listing text we both worked from labels the same proceeding "(Settlement)." These are inconsistent labels for the same docket; one of them is wrong, and I could not resolve which.
2. Priority date. Prior section says 2003‑12‑18; the Unified Patents portal (per my search results above) shows 2003‑12‑17 for US‑8199747‑B2. Flagged, unresolved.
3. "Griffin." The prior section names Griffin as an IPR2017‑01799 ground reference. I could not verify Griffin's identity from any retrieved source. Treat the name as an unresolved placeholder.

7. What still needs to be pulled for a court-ready answer

1. Front page, item (56) for application 12/398,076 from USPTO PatentCenter — to confirm the OCR-normalized numbers and whether any 2009–2012 art was added.
2. Each reference's U.S. filing date (PAIR/Global Dossier) — decisive for § 102(e).
3. The '747's full claim set and the examiner's PTO‑892/PTO‑326 claim rejections — the front page does not supply claim mappings.
4. The IPR2017‑01799 petition and Final Written Decision — to obtain Griffin's full citation and the Board's element-by-element claim mapping.

Until item 2 is done, the only statements I would stand behind are the citation list and dates in § 2–§ 4; the descriptive and claim-mapping columns in § 2 and § 5(b) are explicitly marked as inference.

I'll research the prior-art references cited on US 8,199,747 and the IPR grounds, since the prior-art citation list wasn't included in the fetched page text.

Let me pin down the identities of the key primary references (Griffin, Zydney, Malik) and the cited prior art list.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 8,199,747 (Rojas) under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Scope, caveats, and a sourcing problem I have to flag first

The "Prior Art section" of the Google Patents page was not present in the fetched page text I was given. The page text I received contains the abstract, description, definitions, and classifications, but the "Cited By / Citations / References Cited" tables were stripped. So I could not literally "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." Instead I reconstructed the prior-art record from (a) the OCR of the printed '747 front page (authoritative — it is the patent's own "References Cited" section), and (b) the IPR record. I flag this so you don't mistake reconstruction for the page's own citation list.

Three contradictions with the previously generated litigation summary that I am flagging explicitly:

1. The litigation summary states that IPR2017-01799's ground was "claims 1–3, 12, 13 obvious over Griffin and Zydney" and that a Final Written Decision entered Jan. 31, 2019. That is consistent with Samsung's own demonstrative exhibit (Ex. 1044, "IPR2017-01799 – Instituted Grounds: Claims 1-3, 12 and 13 as obvious over Griffin and Zydney"). However, the Google Patents family entry you supplied labels IPR2017-01799 as "(Settlement)", and Patent Owner's materials in the parallel '622 proceeding show that the original Institution Decision (Paper 9) declined to institute on claim 1 and that claims 1, 3, and 13 were only "newly instituted, as a matter of procedure, under SAS" (Paper 16). I cannot reconcile "Settlement" with "FWD entered" and I will not pretend to. Treat the ultimate merits outcome of IPR2017-01799 as unconfirmed.
2. The summary attributes IPR2017-02085 to "Google Patents listing" with no petitioner. The Patent Owner slide deck confirms IPR2017-02085 is a '747 case and that its Decision Denying Institution (Paper 11) at 19 contains the Zydney-anticipation analysis of claim 1. That is useful and I use it below.
3. The summary says "The '747 does not appear in the Microsoft status-report patent chart." Consistent — but note a Bogard reference (US 6,757,365 B1) was used as an exhibit in Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01559. That is a family-adjacent proceeding, not a '747 assertion.

Governing law / effective date. The '747 issued from App. 12/398,076, filed Mar. 4, 2009, as a continuation of App. 10/740,030, filed Dec. 18, 2003 (the '890). Pre-AIA § 103(a) governs. The § 103 analysis is date-sensitive here in a way that matters a great deal — see § 5 below.

1. The prior art actually of record

1.1 Front-page U.S. patent documents (as printed; OCR variants reproduced literally)

All are marked "* cited by examiner." I am not auto-correcting the garbled identifiers — I am reporting them as printed in each OCR, with the discrepancy noted.

1.2 Front-page non-patent literature

• "Data Sheet Cisco CallManager Version 3.3," Nov. 22, 2002 (and a second Cisco CallManager citation combined with "Data Sheet Cisco MGX 8000 Series," date unknown).
• "Device Profile: snom 100 VoIP phone," May 15, 2002.
• "Teliphone 3100-V21P," 2003.
• Pingtel press release, "No limits with the advanced industry standard SIP phone," Dec. 8, 2003; plus AudioCodes Enabling Technology Products, TPM-1100 VoIP Media Gateway Modules, 2003.

Google Patents' examiner search keywords are "ivm," "instant voice," "voice message," "client," "server."

1.3 The two principal references used in the IPRs (not on the face of the '747)

• "Griffin" = US 2004/0015553 A1, Griffin, Chris Michael et al., Voice and text group chat display management techniques for wireless mobile terminals (published Jan. 22, 2004). Disclosure relied on: mobile terminals 100 (push-to-talk button 101, microphone 107), packet-based network 203 ("the Internet or World Wide Web, a private network such as a corporate intranet…"), server complex 204, message broadcaster 303, presence manager 302, presence records 700 with current status 702 = "Available"/"Off" (also "Text Only"), recipient status field 607, buddy list with presence icon 911, outbound/inbound speech chat messages 400/500 with a fielded format (Fig. 4; 6:38–44), and queuing of a speech message at server complex 204 when the chat-history display is not visible (11:48–67). Source: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2004/0015553.html
• "Zydney" = PCT publication WO 01/11824, Method and system for voice exchange and voice distribution, published Feb. 15, 2001. Disclosure relied on: sender/recipient "software agents" and a central server over the Internet; "voice containers" that "can be stored, transcoded and routed to the appropriate recipients instantaneously or stored for later delivery"; the central server "track[s] and maintain[s] the status of all software agents"; "pack and send" mode vs. real-time "intercom" mode, manually or automatically selected by the software agent according to rules; claim 1's "storing said message at said central server when said recipient is not available for forwarding when said recipient is available"; a message-server repository for agents not logged on (25:1–4); and attachments to voice containers using MIME (19:1–12, Figs. 16–18), plus a repeat-times field 336 (Fig. 3).

2. The claims in issue (limitations I can source to the record)

The '747's independent claim 1 is a method claim for "instant voice messaging over a packet-switched network," and the record shows it recites: generating an instant voice message; "attaching one or more files to the audio file"; "transmitting the instant voice message having one or more recipients"; "receiving an instant voice message when a recipient is available"; and "receiving a temporarily stored instant voice message when a recipient becomes available, wherein the instant voice message is temporarily stored when at least one recipient is unavailable." (Claim 1's "attaching … to the audio file" language is quoted by the Board in the '747 institution decision; see Ex. 2005 at 4; and the corresponding element breakdown appears in the Lavian declaration in PTACTS petition 1487254.)

• Claim 2 recites "receiving a list of nodes within the packet-switched network, the list of nodes including a connectivity status of each node, said connectivity status being available and unavailable, wherein a node within the list is adapted to be selected as a recipient of an instant voice message."
• Claim 3 is the method claim adding "controlling a method of generating the instant voice message based upon a connectivity status [of] each recipient."
• Claim 12 depends from claim 2. Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and adds "displaying an indication that an instant voice message has been received" and "separating the instant voice message into an audio file and one or more files."

⚠️ I am reproducing these from IPR pleadings/decisions, not from the claim text on the page you gave me (the claims section was not in the fetched text). Treat them as high-confidence but verify against the patent's claims before filing anything.

3. Ground A — Claims 1, 3, and 13 obvious over Griffin + Zydney

This is the combination the Board actually instituted on (post-SAS) in IPR2017-01799.

Motivation to combine (articulated, per KSR / MPEP 2143):

1. Same field, same problem. Both references are directed to voice messaging between users of packet networks where the recipient's availability is the central design problem. Combining references from the same field to address the same deficiency is the paradigm case. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
2. Griffin itself supplies the improvement motive. Griffin already queues speech messages when the recipient cannot receive them (display not visible). Extending that queueing trigger from "display not visible" to "terminal 100 not connected to server complex 204" is a natural, commonsense extension — the very argument Samsung advanced and which the Board credited in the sibling '622 proceeding.
3. Zydney supplies the missing mechanism and the predictable result. Because Zydney already tracks agent status and stores/re-delivers on availability, a POSITA would have expected success with no change in the respective functions of either system ("combination of familiar elements according to known methods … predictable results").
4. Design incentive. Instant text messaging already provided presence + list-based recipient selection (a fact the '747's own Background concedes); providing the voice analogue creates a known market/demand incentive.
5. No teaching away. Griffin's fielded message format (Fig. 4) positively invites extension; nothing in either reference disparages the combination. The Federal Circuit rejected an analogous "teaches away" argument in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 19-2162 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2021) (slip op. at 10–11), https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/19-2162/19-2162-2021-11-18.pdf.

Weaknesses (and how a challenger must fix them):

• The "attaching … to the audio file" limitation is the killer. The Board has repeatedly held that Zydney's attachment to a voice container is not attachment to the audio file (see IPR2017-01257 Paper 8 at 18–19; IPR2017-01799 Paper 9; IPR2017-02085 Paper 11 at 19). Ground A alone therefore does not render claim 1 or claim 13 obvious on the existing record.
• Claim 3's "controlling a method of generating" is separately vulnerable. The Board found that "the ability to select a different mode of delivery is distinguishable from controlling the method of generating" (see IPR2017-02085 Paper 11 at 19, as quoted in Ex. 2005). Note, however, that in IPR2017-01797 the Board did find Zydney (with Shinder) taught intercom/record modes and an availability-contingent default — so this is a claim-construction fight, not a dead end.

4. Ground B — Claim 2 (and claim 12) obvious over Griffin + Zydney, with Griffin alone teaching the status list

The "list of nodes … including a connectivity status of each node" limitation maps well:

• Griffin's presence manager 302 / presence records 700 / current status 702 ("Available," "Off") with the buddy list and icon 911 disclose a displayed list of recipients with availability status. In the parallel '622 proceeding the Board found Griffin alone taught the analogous "indicia … whether the potential recipient is currently available to receive an instant voice message" (claim 22), and that "Available" means the buddy "is ready to receive" a speech chat message.
• Zydney independently discloses the central server tracking and conveying "[t]he status of all recipients."

Motivation: a POSITA would modify Griffin's status 702 (which on Griffin's face addresses user presence) to also reflect terminal connectivity, because Zydney teaches exactly that, and because it "would have enhanced the usability, convenience, efficiency, and privacy" of Griffin's system. The Board credited precisely that formulation by a preponderance of the evidence in the sibling proceeding.

Defense to expect: Patent Owner's "node means a device, not a person" argument — i.e., Griffin's status 702 describes a user's presence, so person-presence ≠ node-connectivity. This argument was pressed in the '747 IPR (see PTACTS petition 1508318). The combination with Zydney is the direct answer.

5. Ground C — the attachment limitation: combinations that actually close it

Because the "attaching one or more files to the audio file" limitation defeated Zydney-alone and Zydney-plus-Griffin arguments, a viable § 103 case on claim 1 / claim 13 needs a reference that attaches an auxiliary file to voice/audio data (or that renders doing so obvious). Candidates:

1. Malik, US 2007/0112925 A1 — cited on the face of the '747 and used as the third reference in the Samsung ground against dependent/system claims (the "Griffin plus Zydney and Malik" ground). Because it is on the face of the '747, it is the cleanest drop-in: it cannot be said the examiner was unaware of it.
2. The remaining on-face messaging/attachment art — e.g., Goodman US 2004/0122906 A1, Bernstein US 2004/0128356 A1, Boukobza US 2006/0167883 A1, Weiner US 2006/0268750 A1. I cannot verify the specific disclosures of these documents from the sources I retrieved, and I will not characterize them. Each must be pulled and read before being relied upon.
3. The ubiquitous e-mail attachment paradigm as an articulated-rationale anchor: attaching files to a message was among the most familiar techniques in electronic messaging by 2003; applying it to a voice message is "a predictable variation" and "the product of ordinary skill."

⚠️ Critical date problem — flag this as a high-value attack avenue. Every reference in 1.1 above bearing a 2004–2008 publication date cannot be § 102(a)/(b) art against a Dec. 18, 2003 effective filing date, and would only be § 102(e) art if its application filing date preceded Dec. 18, 2003 (implausible for, e.g., a May 2007 publication). Yet the examiner cited them against the '747. That is consistent with the examiner not according the '747 the benefit of the Dec. 18, 2003 filing date and instead treating Mar. 4, 2009 as the effective date. If the '747's benefit claim to the '890 fails (e.g., a § 112 ¶1 written-description gap for a given claim, such as the "list of nodes"/"connectivity status" or negative-attachment language), the effective date shifts to 2009 and the entire 2004–2008 set — including Malik — becomes available 102(a)/(b) art. That would materially strengthen every ground above. This is a priority/§ 112 question, but it is the single most leveraged issue for a § 103 challenge to the '747.

6. Ground D — PSTN/VoIP-telephone and media-gateway limitations over the admitted prior art

The '747's Background admits as prior art: VoIP softphones, VoIP telephones, softswitches, media gateways that "convert the audio signal carried over PSTN to packets," and the IP network itself (Fig. 1; 1:62–2:17). The front-page NPL corroborates each element:

• Cisco CallManager 3.3 datasheet (Nov. 22, 2002) and the Cisco MGX 8000 Series datasheet → softswitch/call-management infrastructure.
• snom 100 (May 15, 2002), Pingtel SIP phone (Dec. 8, 2003), Teliphone 3100-V21P (2003) → commercially available VoIP telephones usable as the claimed "VoIP telephone … for providing input audio."
• AudioCodes TPM-1100 VoIP Media Gateway Modules (2003) → the claimed media gateway / PSTN-to-packet conversion.

Combined with Zydney's instant-voice-messaging architecture and Griffin's presence/chat model, these teach the disclosed "PSTN support" and "VoIP telephone" and "media gateway" embodiments (which the '747's Summary recites in system-claim form: "a PSTN telephone connected to the network for providing input audio; a client … generating an instant voice message therefor using the input audio provided by the PSTN telephone…"). Motivation: media gateways existed for the express purpose of letting legacy terminals participate in packet-switched services; wiring a PSTN/VoIP telephone into an IVM system as the audio input/output device is the reason the gateway exists, i.e., a known technique applied to a known problem with predictable results. For the telephone-interface-as-IM-client concept specifically, Bogard, US 6,757,365 B1 ("Instant messaging via telephone interfaces," Tellme Networks) is directly on point and was deployed as an exhibit in the Microsoft/Uniloc family IPR.

7. Bottom line

Aggregate takeaway: The '747's vulnerable core under § 103 is claim 2/12 (Griffin's presence list — the Board already credited Griffin alone for the analogous limitation) and the PSTN/gateway system claims (admitted prior art). The hard limitation across the board is claim 1's "attaching one or more files to the audio file," which the PTAB has refused to read onto Zydney's voice container in at least three decisions (IPR2017-01257 Paper 8 at 18–19; IPR2017-01799 Paper 9; IPR2017-02085 Paper 11 at 19). Any serious § 103 challenge must (i) supply a reference that attaches a file to the audio/voice data itself, and/or (ii) attack the Dec. 18, 2003 priority claim so the 2004–2008 on-face publications (including Malik) become available as art.

8. Confidence and limitations of this answer

• High confidence: the identity and content mapping of Griffin (US 2004/0015553 A1) and Zydney (WO 01/11824); the existence and subject matter of the front-page references and NPL; the Board's holdings on Zydney's "voice container" vs. "audio file"; the instituted ground in IPR2017-01799.
• Medium confidence: the verbatim wording of the '747 claims (reconstructed from IPR pleadings and Board opinions rather than from the patent's claim text, which was not in the fetched page); the procedural posture of IPR2017-01799 (FWD vs. settlement conflict — unresolved).
• Low confidence / not verified: the specific disclosures of Goodman US 2004/0122906 A1, Bernstein US 2004/0128356 A1, Boukobza US 2006/0167883 A1, Weiner US 2006/0268750 A1, and the remaining on-face references. Do not rely on these without pulling the documents. I did not fabricate content for them.
• Also unverified: the exact filing dates of the on-face 2004–2008 publications (needed to determine their § 102(e) status against a Dec. 18, 2003 date) and whether the '747's benefit claim to the '890 has ever been tested.

Primary sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8199747B2](/patent/US8199747B2)/en · printed-patent OCR via http://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-01797/Samsung_Electronics_America_Inc._v._Uniloc_Luxembourg_S.A/docs/08-24-2018-Petitioner/Exhibit-1043-Exhibit_1043.pdf · Samsung instituted-grounds exhibit, http://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-01798/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8724622/docs/11-16-2018-Petitioner/Exhibit-1044-40-Exhibit_1044.pdf · PO demonstratives quoting IPR2017-01799 Paper 9, IPR2017-01257 Paper 8 and IPR2017-02085 Paper 11, http://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-01797/Samsung_Electronics_America_Inc._v._Uniloc_Luxembourg_S.A/docs/10-23-2018-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2005-Patent_Owners_Demonstrative_Exhibit_Slides.pdf · Zydney-only petition and Lavian declaration, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1487254/download-documents · PO responses in PTACTS petitions 1508317 and 1508318 · Griffin publication, https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2004/0015553.html · Zydney abstract/description, https://typeset.io/papers/method-and-system-for-voice-exchange-and-voice-distribution-7w5mxqnbsh · Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 19-2162 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2021), https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/19-2162/19-2162-2021-11-18.pdf · Bogard US 6,757,365 B1 exhibit, http://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-01559/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Uniloc_2017_LLC/docs/09-13-2019-Petitioner/Exhibit-1031-...