Invalidity dossier
US 8238859
Radio receiver
Current assignee: Velocity Communication Technologies LLC
Added 9/23/2026, 9:40:41 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 8,238,859 B2
Title: Radio receiver
Patent number / application: US 8,238,859 B2; Application US 12/281,987.
Assignee information from the source: Original assignee NXP B.V.; current assignee listed as Velocity Communication Technologies LLC. (The source notes listed assignees may be inaccurate and that no legal analysis was performed.)
Key dates: Priority date 2006-03-09; filing date 2007-03-08; publication of US20090093227A1 on 2009-04-09; granted and published as US8238859B2 on 2012-08-07. Status listed as "Active – Reinstated," with adjusted expiration 2029-06-19.
Inventors: Egelbertus C. J. Egelmeers, Ralph H. A. D. De Graaff, Dirk N. Van Kalsbeek.
Purpose and plain-language scope (per the excerpt): The invention relates to radio receivers, and in particular to methods and an apparatus for aligning components in a radio receiver to signals at particular frequencies. The excerpt explains the underlying problem: an antenna has an optimum length or parameters for each frequency received, so a single antenna length suits narrow bands (e.g., the FM band, 87.5–108 MHz, where the deviation in desired length is about 25%) better than wide bands (e.g., the MW band, where deviation is about 300%). A quarter-wavelength example is given (ideal antenna length 75 cm at 100 MHz). Ferroceptor antennas (coil-shaped magnetic antennas with a ferrite core) are described as small and less disturbance-sensitive but still suffering poor tuning in wideband applications. The excerpt states that where an antenna combines a coil and one or more capacitors, one can change either the coil's inductance or the capacitor value(s), and mentions that a bank of capacitors can be provided.
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not provide the full claims, detailed embodiments, or the complete description. Component-alignment methods are only partially described. It also does not establish litigation, ownership-transfer validity, patent validity, or prior art beyond the listed classifications (H03H7/01, H03H11/12, H03H11/30, H03H7/40, among others).
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:54:12 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8238859. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.