US 8301713

I'll search for current information on US patent 8301713, including any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me check the litigation history and current status more specifically.

Let me verify the IPR2019-00937 outcome and confirm whether any 2026 activity exists.

US Patent 8,301,713 — Analyst Summary

Scope note / search caveat: My searches returned extensive relevant material on US 8,301,713, but also significant noise because the string "8301713" matches unrelated identifiers (e.g., DE 8301713 A1, a German patent document; Brazilian utility model MU 8301713-5; the content of US 4,524,300). I filtered those out. I found no 2026 CAFC docket activity for this patent; the Federal Circuit proceedings involving it concluded in 2020–2021 (detailed below). I could not complete a final verification search on one IPR outcome before hitting the search limit, so I flag that uncertainty explicitly.

1. Bibliographic data (from the authoritative patent text)

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"An improved handheld electronic device and an associated method are provided in which time data regarding certain aspects of a messaging conversation on a handheld electronic device are made available to a user. Such time data is provided, for instance, in situations where an interruption has occurred during a messaging conversation. Time data can also be provided to a user on demand in certain circumstances."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has three independent claims — claim 1 (method), claim 5 (non-transitory computer-readable medium), and claim 9 (electronic device with display, memory and processor). All three recite substantially the same five-step logic, so they rise and fall together:

1. Output an electronic conversation — display the running set of indications (one per instant message) exchanged between the device and a second device.
2. Identify a first messaging communication occurring at a first time — i.e., pin down one message and when it was sent.
3. Determine that a predetermined duration elapsed since the first time without additional communication — the "conversation went quiet" test (specification's example: ten minutes).
4. Detect an input to the device after those steps, the input occurring at a second time — in practice, the user typing/sending a message to resume the conversation.
5. Responsive to detecting that input, output a time stamp in the conversation representative of the second time — i.e., stamp the resumption, not the original message.

Dependent claims:

• 2 / 6 / 10 — the input is a "resumption message."
• 3 / 7 / 11 — output a second indication for at least a portion of the resumption message.
• 4 / 8 / 12 — the time stamp is "disposed between" the first indication and the second indication.

Key observation on claim scope: Note that the issued claims recite a time stamp "representative of the second time" (the time of the resumption input), whereas much of the specification and the original summary of the invention describe outputting a time stamp "representative of the first time" (the time of the non-responded-to message). The granted independent claims are therefore narrower/different in emphasis than the specification's headline embodiment; anyone analyzing infringement or validity should work from the claim language, not the summary section.

4. Enforceability / litigation history (important for any current analysis)

The apparent assertion of this patent did not end with a live enforceable claim set:

• District court (C.D. Cal., Judge George H. Wu): BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., Instagram LLC, No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS (filed March 2018), consolidated for pretrial purposes with BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc., No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KS. US 8,301,713 was among the asserted patents. BlackBerry's February 6, 2020 briefing argued against § 101 invalidity of claims 3 and 4, and the court ultimately found the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (see Docket Nos. 487 and 655).
• PTAB — IPR2019-00899 (Facebook, Inc., Instagram LLC, WhatsApp Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited): instituted 2019-10-08 on claims 1–12. Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed claims 1–3, 5–7 and 9–11 (effective 2019-12-31). The Board issued a Final Written Decision on October 5–6, 2020 holding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). An IPR certificate (K1) was issued October 6, 2021. Confirmatory disclaimers were also filed (2021-09-14 and again 2022-10-25).
• PTAB — IPR2019-00937 (Snap Inc.): docketed as filed with a Final Written Decision per Google Patents' litigation listing. I was not able to verify its precise outcome before exhausting my search budget — treat the specific result as unconfirmed.
• Federal Circuit: BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc., Nos. 2020-1256 and 2020-1258 (consolidated; Appeals from C.D. Cal. Nos. 2:18-cv-01844 and 2:18-cv-02693). Judgment entered December 10, 2020: AFFIRMED (Rule 36, nonprecedential; panel Lourie, O'Malley, Reyna). Mandate issued January 19, 2021. CourtListener case page: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4837660](/patent/4837660)/blackberry-limited-v-facebook-inc/

Net effect: the independent claims were disclaimed and/or held unpatentable, and the district court's § 101 invalidity ruling was affirmed on appeal. The patent is also now expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (effective 2024-10-30). Only dependent claims 4, 8 and 12 survived the statutory disclaimer, and those were addressed in the district court § 101 ruling.

5. Uncertainties / caveats

• No 2026 docket activity found. My searches surfaced no CAFC, district court, or PTAB proceeding involving US 8,301,713 in 2026. The relevant appeals (20-1256/20-1258) terminated in December 2020 with mandate in January 2021. One search result (a Chinese-language page) displayed a "2026-03-21" timestamp on an article that is actually the 2018 BlackBerry–Facebook complaint coverage — that is a site-rendering artifact of old content, not 2026 litigation, and I would not rely on it.
• IPR2019-00937 outcome unverified (see above).
• I could not directly query USPTO Patent Center/Patent Public Search or the CAFC docket API in-session; my sources are the authoritative full patent text provided plus law-firm/PTAB/district-court documents surfaced by search. The bibliographic and claim data above come from the patent text itself and are reliable; the litigation-status details come from court and PTAB documents and should be confirmed against the official docket for any dispositive purpose.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8,301,713. Let me start with the sources you specified.

Let me dig into the PTAB proceedings, the CAFC appeals, and the district court outcomes.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,301,713

Important note on scope: I found two district court litigations that directly asserted the '713 patent, plus the related PTAB inter partes reviews and the resulting Federal Circuit appeals. I did not find any other separate suits asserting 8,301,713 beyond the BlackBerry campaign described below. Where I could not confirm a detail from a primary source, I flag it explicitly rather than guess.

1. District Court Litigations (affirmatively asserting the '713 patent)

Case A — BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., Instagram, Inc. and Instagram, LLC

Case B — BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc.

Key § 101 Ruling on the '713 Patent (both cases, consolidated)

• Both defendants moved to dismiss on patent-eligibility grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• The court granted Snap's motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the independent claims of the '713 patent, and denied the motions as to the dependent claims of the '713 and all other motions. (Reported by PatentDocs, citing the C.D. Cal. ruling — see the BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2018) discussion.)
• Representative claim 1 was held directed to an abstract idea (time-stamping messages) — the same claim 1 reproduced in the patent document itself.
• The claims were subsequently mooted: per the patent's USPTO legal-events record, BlackBerry filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9–11 of the '713 patent (effective date listed as Dec. 31, 2019; disclaimer documents filed 2021–2022). That leaves only dependent claims 4, 8, and 12 undisclaimed.

2. PTAB Inter Partes Reviews of the '713 Patent

IPR2019-00899 — Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, and WhatsApp Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited

IPR2019-00937 — Snap Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited

Note on the Petitioners listed in the PTAB records: The Google Patents "Family has litigation" data lists IPR2019-00899 with Petitioner "Unified Patents PTAB Data" and IPR2019-00937 with Snap Inc. The docket records confirm the real parties in interest were Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp (IPR2019-00899) and Snap Inc. (IPR2019-00937). (One secondary table in the search results ambiguously labeled IPR2019-00899 with "Snap Inc." — I treat that as a data-entry artifact, since the Board's own hearing transcript and caption identify the petitioners as Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.)

3. Federal Circuit Appeals

Scope caveat: The appeals arose from the district court's § 101 summary-judgment invalidation of the '351 and '929 patents (entered Oct. 1, 2019; Rule 54(b) final judgment entered to permit the appeal). I could not confirm that the '713 patent was within the scope of the Federal Circuit appeal — the '713 claims appear to have been resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage and by the statutory disclaimer rather than reaching the appeal. Treat the '713's inclusion in the appeal as unverified.

4. Other Proceedings Referencing the '713 Patent

• Claim construction (both district cases): The C.D. Cal. issued a corrected final claim-construction ruling on April 5, 2019, construing terms of the '713 patent, including "predetermined duration of time" and "resumption message." This ruling was later submitted as an exhibit in the PTAB proceedings.
• Snap Case Final Judgment (Nov. 2019) and Facebook Case termination (Feb. 2021) effectively ended the district-court assertion of the '713 patent.
• Patent status (from the USPTO record): "Expired – Fee Related"; maintenance fees lapsed, patent expired Oct. 30, 2024 for failure to pay maintenance fees; original anticipated expiration 2024-09-20.

Summary

Yes, there is known litigation involving US 8,301,713. It consists of:

1. BlackBerry v. Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., Instagram, LLC — C.D. Cal. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS, filed 3/6/2018, terminated 2/16/2021.
2. BlackBerry v. Snap Inc. — C.D. Cal. 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KS, filed March 2018, final judgment Nov. 2019 dismissing the '713 claims with prejudice.
3. IPR2019-00899 (Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp, filed 3/29/2019, FWD 10/6/2020) and IPR2019-00937 (Snap, filed 4/5/2019, settled/terminated 11/26/2019).
4. CAFC Nos. 2020-1256 / 2020-1258, affirmed 12/10/2020 (though the '713's specific inclusion in the appeal is unverified).

Two secondary effects ended the '713's active life: the district court held its independent claims patent-ineligible under § 101 (dismissed with prejudice), and BlackBerry filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9–11, effective Dec. 31, 2019.

Sourcing note: I relied on Google Patents' "Family has litigation" and legal-events records for US8301713, CourtListener/recap documents, Docket Alarm dockets, the PTAB hearing transcript and exhibits, and secondary coverage (IPWatchdog, PatentDocs). I was unable to directly load the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com) caselist during this session; the Unified Patents case links cited on the patent page (the two CAFC cases and the two C.D. Cal. cases) are consistent with the findings above. If you need PACER-verified docket entries or the exact settlement/termination terms in the Facebook case, those would require a direct PACER pull, which I could not complete here.

I'll research these proceedings. Note an immediate tension: the structured ODP block says "no PTAB activity," but the authoritative patent text itself lists two IPRs. Let me verify via web search.

Strong signals — two IPRs exist despite the ODP block. Let me get the FWD outcomes and the CAFC appeals.

Let me pin down the FWD outcome and the statutory disclaimer details.

PTAB Proceedings — US 8,301,713 ("Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment")

Data-integrity flag up front: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings. That is wrong on the face of the record. The patent's own front page lists two PTAB cases, and the Board's public dockets confirm both. I have treated the ODP block as stale/unreliable here and sourced the list from the patent text plus PTAB dockets. Two further caveats on the same page: (a) Google Patents labels the petitioner for both cases as "Unified Patents PTAB Data" — that is the data vendor attribution, not a party; the real petitioners are the Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp defendants and Snap Inc. (b) The listed CAFC cases 20‑1256 / 20‑1258 are district‑court appeals, not IPR appeals.

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trial proceedings were filed on US 8,301,713: one (IPR2019‑00899, Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp) reached a Final Written Decision on 2020‑10‑06; one (IPR2019‑00937, Snap) was terminated as settled on 2019‑11‑26 before any FWD. No claim was invalidated by the Board — instead, BlackBerry statutorily disclaimed claims 1‑3, 5‑7 and 9‑11 (effective 2019‑12‑31), leaving only dependent claims 4, 8 and 12 on the record. Bottom line for a defendant: nine of the twelve claims are gone as a matter of the patent owner's own disclaimer (functionally canceled for enforcement purposes), and the patent itself expired 2024‑10‑30 for failure to pay maintenance fees.

IPR2019‑00899 — Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC & WhatsApp Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019‑03‑29 (filing-date notice accorded 2019‑04‑09; the patent's legal-events feed shows the record entry on 2019‑05‑07 — the 2019‑03‑29 date is the operative filing date)
• Status: Final Written Decision (docket shows termination 2020‑10‑06). Tech Center 2400 / Art Unit 2457.
• Judge panel: Aaron Moore (as reported), Miriam Quinn, Robert Kinder, plus Jacqueline Harlow and Michael Zecher appearing in the panel listing for the proceeding. (Web-sourced; verify against the face of Papers 15/37 at PTAB E2E.)
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness built on the AOL Instant Messenger system and related references, including the AOL Tour Guide (Ex.1004), Snader / Stevens TCP/IP texts (Ex.1005–1006), the Erickson et al. "Babble" CHI '99 paper (Ex.1007), US 2004/0145608 (Ex.1009), and other publications. BlackBerry's papers characterize the central combinations as "Crawford/Watson" AOL‑IM‑based modifications. BlackBerry also litigated § 325(d) (art already before the Examiner) and § 314(a) (General Plastic / E‑One discretionary denial) in its POPR and Preliminary Sur‑Reply (2019‑08‑28).
• Institution decision: Instituted 2019‑10‑08 (Board Institution Decision, Paper 15). The Board also issued a companion order (Paper 16).
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2020‑10‑06 (Paper 37; a Board hearing transcript is of the same date). Caveat — I could not verify from the sources retrieved whether the FWD held claims 4, 8 and 12 unpatentable or sustained them. What is documented is that on 2019‑12‑31 BlackBerry filed a statutory disclaimer (37 C.F.R. § 1.321) of claims 1‑3, 5‑7 and 9‑11, filed as PO Ex.2013 with its Patent Owner Response (Paper 23). That disclaimer predates the FWD and removed the independent claims from the case, so the FWD can only have addressed claims 4, 8 and 12 (the dependent claims reciting that the time stamp is "disposed between the first indication and the second indication"). Treat the paper itself as the authoritative claim-level record.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled — this proceeding ran to FWD. The parallel C.D. Cal. litigation did resolve (see below).
• Appeal: No IPR appeal is documented. The Federal Circuit cases on the patent's face (20‑1256 and 20‑1258, consolidated, BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. / Snap Inc.) are appeals from the C.D. Cal. district court judgments, not from the Board — affirmed per curiam (nonprecedential), 2020‑12‑10, panels Lourie / O'Malley / Reyna (CourtListener). An IPR certificate for IPR2019‑00899 issued 2021‑10‑06.
• Defensive value: The independent claims you would actually assert — 1, 5 and 9 — were surrendered by the patent owner, not saved. Any infringement theory built on claim 1 (or 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11) is built on a disclaimed claim; that is sanction-bait if pleaded today. The live battleground is only the three narrow dependents (4, 8, 12).

IPR2019‑00937 — Snap Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019‑04‑05 (patent legal-events feed records entry on 2019‑06‑18)
• Status: Terminated – Settled (decision/termination 2019‑11‑26)
• Judge panel: Aaron W. Moore (opinion author), Robert L. Kinder, Miriam L. Quinn
• Petition grounds: All twelve claims (1–12) challenged. Statutory basis not confirmed from retrieved sources — do not assume § 103; the Snap petition should be pulled before relying on it. Note that Snap's final election of prior art in the district case identified, for the '713 patent, "the iChat system and related references," the Mac OS X references, Microsoft Outlook, US 7,281,215 (Canfield) and US 7,278,108 (Duarte) — that list reflects Snap's litigation position, not necessarily the IPR grounds.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2019‑10‑08. (Reported "Claims Instituted" field is blank in the secondary database; verify the instituted claim set at Paper 15 on PTAB E2E.)
• Final Written Decision: None — the case settled before FWD. That matters for estoppel (see below).
• Settlement / termination: Terminated as settled 2019‑11‑26. Terms are not public. Context: the parallel C.D. Cal. case BlackBerry Ltd. v. Snap Inc., 2:18‑cv‑02693, was resolved by a Final Judgment entered 2019‑11‑19 dismissing BlackBerry's '713 claims (Count III) and '634 claims (Count IV) with prejudice, dismissing Snap's DJ counterclaims on those patents with prejudice, and including a covenant that BlackBerry will not pursue any '713 or '634 claim against Snap that was raised or could have been raised in that action (CourtListener, Dkt. 118).
• Appeal: The IPR was not appealed. Snap's district‑court appeal is rolled into the consolidated 20‑1258 (affirmed 2020‑12‑10).
• Defensive value: Low direct value — Snap got a covenant not to sue on the '713, and the IPR died with the settlement. Crucially, because no FWD issued, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached to Snap from this proceeding.

Strategic summary

Claim status on US 8,301,713. The claim set is 1–12. Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 were statutorily disclaimed by BlackBerry (37 C.F.R. § 1.321), effective 2019‑12‑31 — this includes all three independent claims (1, 5, 9). Claims 4, 8 and 12 remain on the record and were the only claims capable of being adjudicated in the IPR2019‑00899 FWD. Each of 4, 8 and 12 is a dependent claim that incorporates the limitations of a now‑disclaimed parent and adds the requirement that the time stamp be positioned between the non‑responded‑to message indication and the resumption‑message indication. There are no claims that were invalidated by the Board and no claims confirmed patentable by the Board that I can verify — the narrowing came from the patent owner's own disclaimer, not an adverse FWD. Note also the two recorded disclaimer entries (2021‑09‑14 and 2022‑10‑25), both with effective date 2019‑12‑31, consistent with an original and a corrected terminal disclaimer filing.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches upon issuance of a FWD and binds the petitioner, real parties in interest and privies. Only IPR2019‑00899 produced a FWD (2020‑10‑06), so the Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp defendants are the only AIA‑estopped group — barred from asserting in litigation any § 102/§ 103 ground they raised or reasonably could have raised against claims 1–12. By contrast, IPR2019‑00937 settled pre‑FWD, so Snap carries no § 315(e)(2) estoppel from it. For a new defendant not in privity with either group, no statutory estoppel applies at all — § 102/§ 103 art, § 112, and § 101 remain fully available (subject only to SAS/Shaw-line district‑court estoppel case law and any case‑specific IPR stipulations by prior defendants). The most useful, non‑estopped ground against the surviving dependents is § 101/§ 112 in view of the disclaimer‑narrowed claim scope.

Pattern signals. This patent was hit by two simultaneous IPRs from two independent defendant groups (the Facebook family and Snap), both filed within a week of each other in spring 2019, both against the same C.D. Cal. assertion campaign. The patent owner's response was defensive rather than appellate: it did not appeal the IPR2019‑00899 FWD (no such appeal is documented) and instead surrendered nine claims, while the '713 was dismissed with prejudice as to Snap under a covenant not to sue. There is no defensive aggregator in the chain — the "Unified Patents" label is a data‑vendor artifact, not a petitioner. One practical warning: the '713 sits in a large continuation family (US 8,555,859; 8,745,149; 9,325,643; 9,385,973; 9,503,400; 10,708,202; 10,735,353; 11,888,601; 11,985,099). A demand letter on the '713 may be a prelude to assertion of a sibling with materially identical claims — check the siblings before you respond.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the dispositive papers yourself before relying on this summary. The claim‑level disposition of claims 4, 8 and 12 is the single open question, and I could not confirm it from the sources retrieved. Get:
   • IPR2019‑00899, Paper 37 (Final Written Decision, 2020‑10‑06) and the IPR certificate (issued 2021‑10‑06) via USPTO PTAB E2E / PatentCenter — the certificate is the definitive statement of which claims stand canceled.
   • IPR2019‑00899, Paper 15 (Institution Decision, 2019‑10‑08) for the exact instituted claims and grounds.
   • IPR2019‑00937, termination decision (2019‑11‑26) and Paper 15 for the instituted claim set and the settled‑case record.
2. Lead with the disclaimer, not with the FWD. The cleanest, cheapest knockout against a demand letter citing claim 1, 5 or 9 is that those claims were statutorily disclaimed effective 2019‑12‑31 and no longer exist for enforcement purposes. Quote the disclaimer entry and the IPR certificate; there is no need to relitigate validity.
3. Check the expiration ledger. The '713 lapsed 2024‑10‑30 for failure to pay maintenance fees (recorded 2024‑12‑02). Infringement exposure for ongoing/new conduct is over; only a pre‑expiration damages window (and any accrued past‑damages claim in a still‑pending suit) survives.
4. If you are asserted on claims 4, 8 or 12, attack them narrowly: each depends from a disclaimed parent and adds only relative positioning of the time stamp. Consider § 112 (written description/definiteness as to the "between the first indication and the second indication" limitation) and § 101, and run a fresh § 102/§ 103 search on the AOL‑IM/Babble/Erickson and Yamamoto (US 2003/0104841) / GB 2 384 150 art cited on the patent's face — a new defendant is not bound by the Facebook group's § 315(e)(2) estoppel.
5. If you are a Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp affiliate or privy, assume you are estopped as to any ground you raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2019‑00899 and confine yourself to grounds outside that scope.

Sources: PTAB docket — Facebook, Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited, IPR2019‑00899 · IPR2019‑00937 summary · BlackBerry Ltd. v. Snap Inc., Dkt. 118 (C.D. Cal. 2019) · BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., Nos. 20‑1256/20‑1258 (Fed. Cir. 2020‑12‑10) · Patent front page and legal events, US8301713B2.

I'll verify the assignment record and litigation context with targeted searches before assembling the report.

Let me try to pin down the assignment correspondent of record and confirm there are no additional recorded transfers.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 8,301,713 B2

Patent: Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
App. 13/111,675 (continuation of 10/944,925, now US 7,970,849) · filed 2011-05-19 · issued 2012-10-30 · priority 2003-09-19 (prov. 60/504,379)
Current owner of record: BlackBerry Limited (formerly Research In Motion Limited)
Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 8301713)

Method note: The Google Patents legal-events block (which mirrors the same USPTO Assignment Center records) shows only two recorded assignment events for this patent. I was able to confirm the litigation and IPR history from primary/industry sources, but I could not retrieve the recorded "correspondent of record" fields (the attorney/firm that filed the recordings) from the sources available to me. That field is flagged as not determinable below rather than guessed. No reel/frame is cited here that I did not actually observe.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: Not present / no evidence. All three inventors executed an "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" to Research In Motion Limited, so their employer at filing is determinable directly from the recorded instrument (reel 026359/0897). There is no record of any inventor departing RIM within 12 months of filing, and no named inventor appears as an assignor to any third party in this chain. All three also appear as co-inventors on the sibling family members (e.g. US 7,970,849; EP/CA counterparts), consistent with a stable in-house R&D team rather than a deliberately orphaned portfolio.

Original assignee

Research In Motion Limited (RIM) — Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Named on the issued patent and confirmed as the "Original Assignee" in the Google Patents bibliographic block.

• Primary line of business: Wireless handheld devices and enterprise messaging. RIM designed and sold the BlackBerry device line and, critically for this patent, shipped BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) — a product that directly embodies the claimed "time data in a messaging environment" functionality.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. BlackBerry's 2018 complaint expressly grounds the '713 case on BBM as the practicing/commercialized implementation ("within eight hours the BlackBerry app was downloaded 5 million times…") — an operating-company commercialization narrative, not a licensing-only one.
• Current status: Operating, but transformed. RIM changed its name to BlackBerry Limited effective 2013-07-09 (recorded 2014-11-04). BlackBerry exited handset manufacturing (outsourced to TCL) and now operates as a cybersecurity/software/IoT company (NYSE: BB). Not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. BlackBerry has since become an active patent monetizer/assertor in its own right.

Assignment timeline

Two recorded conveyance events total. Both are captured.

2006-08-11 → 2006-09-05 (executed) / recorded 2011-05-26 — Reel 026359/0897

• Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
• Assignor: Gerhard D. Klassen; Christopher R. Wormald; Lawrence E. Kuhl (individually)
• Assignee: Research In Motion Limited (Canada)
• Correspondent: Not determinable from available sources. Recurrence flag: cannot be assessed — two records in the chain is too small a sample, and I could not retrieve the correspondent fields for either recording. Do not treat this as a null finding; it simply is not verifiable here.
• Context: Ordinary inventor→company assignment of rights in a continuation application. Note the timing anomaly: execution dates of 2006 against a record filed in 2011, for an application not filed until 2011-05-19 — the instrument was executed years before it was recorded, and the record appears in the same window as the four 2011-05-19 continuation filings. This is a housekeeping/perfecting recording, not a transfer of ownership between distinct parties.

2013-07-09 (effective) / recorded 2014-11-04 — Reel 034161/0020

• Conveyance: Change of Name ("CHANGE OF NAME; ASSIGNOR: RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED")
• Assignor: Research In Motion Limited
• Assignee: BlackBerry Limited (Ontario, Canada)
• Correspondent: Not determinable from available sources.
• Context: Change of name only — the same legal entity rebranding. No change in beneficial ownership; no third party introduced.

Post-chain events (not assignments, but ownership-relevant):

• 2019-03-29 — IPR2019-00899 filed (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp). Google Patents records the filing date; the Board instituted on 2019-10-08.
• 2019-04-05 — IPR2019-00937 filed (Snap Inc.).
• 2019-12-31 (effective) — Statutory disclaimer of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 (recorded 2021-09-14; re-recorded 2022-10-25).
• 2021-10-06 — IPR Certificate (K1) issued, trial IPR2019-00899.
• 2020 — Remaining claims 4, 8, 12 held unpatentable (Final Written Decision, IPR2019-00899).
• 2024-10-30 / 2024-12-02 — Patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees (37 CFR 1.362).

No record of any assignment to an NPE, licensing LLC, or aggregator exists for this patent. The chain terminates at the original operating company.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8301713
    2003 : Priority date
    2004 : Original application filed
    2006 : Inventors assign rights to RIM
    2011 : Continuation filed
         : Assignment recorded at USPTO
    2012 : Patent issued
    2013 : RIM renamed BlackBerry Limited
    2014 : Change of name recorded
    2018 : BlackBerry sues Facebook and Snap
    2019 : IPRs filed and claims disclaimed
    2020 : Remaining claims held unpatentable
    2024 : Patent expired for non payment

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No assignment exists to any entity bearing an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix, and no LLC appears anywhere in the chain. The only two recorded events are (i) inventors→RIM (reel 026359/0897) and (ii) RIM→BlackBerry Limited by change of name (reel 034161/0020). The chain ends at a named operating corporation, not a single-purpose vehicle.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
Neither assignee matches a public NPE roster (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg entities). Both assignees — RIM and BlackBerry Limited — are the same publicly traded operating company (NYSE: BB). Notably, BlackBerry's litigation posture is the inverse of the NPE pattern: it sued actual competitors (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Snap) directly, on its own name and paper, rather than routing the patents to an assertion vehicle.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT DETERMINABLE.
The Assignment Center correspondent field is the key tell in an NPE chain, but for this patent there is nothing to analyze: only two recordings, both between the same entity and itself, and I could not retrieve either correspondent field from the sources available. I will not name an attorney I did not actually observe in a reel/frame record. This signal should be re-run against the recorded documents if a downstream reviewer has Assignment Center UI access.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
Two events, ~8 years apart (recorded 2011-05-26 and 2014-11-04), and the second is a pure name change. There is no sequence of chained LLC conveyances within 24 months, no shared correspondent address, and no common-principal pattern. The application-level proliferation (six continuation filings off 10/944,925, of which four were filed the same day, 2011-05-19) is a prosecution strategy, not an ownership cascade — the assignee never changes across the family.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The first infringement suit naming this patent (BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, C.D. Cal., 2:18-cv-01844) was filed 2018-03-06. The most recent recorded ownership event is a change of name effective 2013-07-09 / recorded 2014-11-04 — roughly 3.5 years before suit, and it did not move the patent to any new party. There is no transfer within 6 months of filing to set venue or manufacture standing; BlackBerry asserted as the original owner.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
Neither RIM nor BlackBerry Limited filed Chapter 7 or Chapter 11, and there is no judicial-sale assignment. The patent lapsed in 2024 for non-payment of maintenance fees — an abandonment/expiry event, explicitly not a bankruptcy sale. Do not conflate the two.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT (on this patent).
The classic privateering tell is an operating company transferring a patent to an NPE that asserts on its behalf. Here the operating company kept the patent and litigated in its own name. The 2018 Facebook and Snap complaints are styled "BlackBerry Limited, a Canadian corporation," with BlackBerry as plaintiff of record — direct assertion, not proxy assertion.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. (Unified Patents appears here only as a data source for the PTAB docket, and Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp and Snap appear as IPR petitioners — i.e. as the targets, not as owners.)

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The patent's entire recorded ownership chain is two instruments — inventors→Research In Motion Limited (reel 026359/0897, recorded 2011-05-26) and a name change to BlackBerry Limited (reel 034161/0020, effective 2013-07-09) — with no NPE, licensing vehicle, or aggregator ever entering the chain, and no transfer within 6 months of the first suit. The patent was commercialized by an operating company ("BlackBerry Messenger") and asserted directly by that same corporation against actual competitors (C.D. Cal. 2:18-cv-01844 filed 2018-03-06; 2:18-cv-02693), which is the defining operating-company-assertion fact pattern rather than the NPE pattern.

Post-script on current enforceability: this patent is now effectively neutralized regardless of ownership. Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-11 were statutorily disclaimed (effective 2019-12-31), remaining claims 4, 8 and 12 were held unpatentable in IPR2019-00899 (Final Written Decision, Oct. 2020), and the patent expired 2024-10-30 for non-payment of maintenance fees. No live assertion risk attaches to US 8,301,713.

Caveat on completeness: the absence of a third-party assignment is a genuine finding drawn from the Google Patents legal-events record of the same USPTO data, but a reviewer with Assignment Center UI access should confirm the reel count and capture the correspondent fields for reels 026359/0897 and 034161/0020 — those are the two data points I was unable to verify and they are the ones that would most cleanly close out signals 3 and 4.

I'll search for US patent 8,301,713 and its cited prior art references. Let me run several searches.

Let me search additional cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 8,301,713 B2

Scope / method note. I reached the tool-call limit before fetching every reference, so the citation data below comes from the authoritative full patent text you supplied (the front-page "Patent Citations (27)" / "Citations (24)" lists and the two Non-Patent Citations), supplemented by the four references I did retrieve in detail. I flag my confidence on each. I did not find a USPTO record contradicting the supplied text, and I did not auto-correct any identifier — the numbers below are reproduced exactly as they appear in the patent.

Two threshold points that govern the entire § 102 exercise:

1. Effective filing date = 2003-09-19 (provisional 60/504,379; the '713 application is a continuation of 10/944,925 filed 2004-09-20). The patent text does not contain anything suggesting post-AIA treatment, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 applies. A reference is § 102 prior art only if it published before 2003-09-19 or qualifies under § 102(e) as of its U.S. filing date. Several cited items (e.g., US 2004/0228531 A1, filed 2003-05-14; US 2004/0137967 A1, filed 2003-01-15) qualify only on their § 102(e) filing dates — that is the correct hook, not their publication dates.
2. The issued claims recite a time stamp "representative of the second time" — the time of the resumption input — not the time of the original message (this is the claim-scope asymmetry already flagged in the summary section). Any § 102 mapping must be to that limitation. Several cited references disclose time-stamping the message, which misses this element.

1. The 27 cited references (full citations on the face of the patent)

Non-patent citations (2):

• Lastoria, Gianluca; Search Report from corresponding European Application No. 10172832.7; search completed 2010-10-01.
• Varma, S.; Search Report from corresponding PCT Application No. PCT/CA2004/001712; search completed 2004-12-01.

2. § 102 analysis — the references that actually matter

For § 102 anticipation, a single reference must disclose every element of the claim, arranged as in the claim. Mapping the independent claims' five elements: (a) output a conversation of message indications; (b) identify a first message at a first time; (c) determine a predetermined duration elapsed without further communication; (d) detect a subsequent input (resumption) at a second time; (e) responsively output a time stamp representative of the second time.

Tier 1 — closest to the inventive concept

US 6,603,389 B1 / WO 01/30091 A1 — Motorola ("delinquent response") (retrieved; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6603389)

• Discloses a two-way selective-call device that composes a message with an identifiable character ("?"), sends it, sets a predetermined time for a response, monitors received messages during that period, and, when the timer expires with no response, alerts the user that the response is "delinquent." The written description expressly recites "determine a count down period or predetermined time periods" and that "when that value reaches zero … the user is alerted that the response or answer to his or her message or question is delinquent."
• Potential § 102 mapping: maps to element (c) — the predetermined-duration-without-response test. It does not disclose displaying a conversation of message indications, nor outputting a time stamp at all (it flags non-response), and certainly not a stamp "representative of the second time." → I do not find it anticipates any of claims 1–12. It is strong § 103 art against the "predetermined duration" limitation (and likely a reference the PTAB petitions relied on; I could not retrieve the IPR2019-00899/00937 institution papers before hitting the search limit). Note the specification's own "ten minutes," "?" = 10 min, "??" = 20 min timers parallel the '389 disclosure, which is a novelty/obviousness pressure point.

US 2003/0104841 A1 — Yamamoto (NEC), "time-stamp associated and weighted data" (retrieved; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030104841)

• Discloses a mobile station (cell phone/PDA) that stores mail data associated with time stamps, computes a difference ΔT between the current date/time and each item's time stamp, assigns a weight, and changes the display mode according to age so the user can "intuitively determine how old" the data is. Sortable by date/time; unread mail in bold.
• Potential § 102 mapping: discloses outputting a message with a time stamp (absolute or age-derived) → touches element (e) in spirit, but the compared time is the message time, and there is no predetermined-duration-without-communication determination and no resumption-input trigger. → Does not anticipate claims 1–12. Good § 103 art for "output a time stamp in a conversation," especially against any claim variant reciting a relative/age-based stamp (the spec's FIG. 10 "less than one minute ago" embodiment).
• GB 2 384 150 A (NEC, "Prioritising time-stamped data") shares the same 2001-11-30 priority and NEC assignee as US 2003/0104841 A1 and appears to be its UK/foreign counterpart → treat them as one family; the same mapping/confidence applies.

US 7,305,441 B2 — IBM, "Time-sensitive messages and events" (retrieved; https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7305441B2](/patent/US7305441B2))

• Discloses marking a message as time-sensitive, sending it, and automatically receiving a reply within the time period of the time-sensitivity, with the recipient required to render/respond once the time-sensitive period is reached.
• Potential § 102 mapping: discloses a time period governing message handling and a responsive action tied to elapsed time → relates to elements (c)/(d). No conversation-with-indications display and no time stamp of the resumption input. → Does not anticipate claims 1–12; § 103 relevance for the "predetermined duration / responsive output" logic.

US 7,111,044 B2 — Fastmobile, "group chat sessions on wireless mobile terminals" (retrieved; https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7111044B2](/patent/US7111044B2))

• Discloses presenting a chat history of inbound/outbound entries in chronological order with scrolling updates, a detail view for truncated messages, and a text editor, expressly addressing small-screen devices (screen-space conservation). Related WO 2004/030257 A3 ("Voice and text group chat display management techniques for wireless mobile terminals").
• Potential § 102 mapping: strongly maps to element (a) (output a conversation of message indications) and to the patent's stated motivation (limited display space). Does not disclose time stamps keyed to a resumption input after a quiet period. → Does not anticipate claims 1–12; core § 103 art for the "electronic conversation" limitation.

Tier 2 — relevant to individual elements (background/context art)

Tier 3 — cited but not probative on the claims

• US 6,301,609 B1 (Lucent, buddy-group priorities), US 7,181,497 B1 (AOL, auto-complete UI), US 2002/0087649 A1 (Horvitz, notification deferral), EP 1 176 840 A1 (Microsoft, buddy lists), WO 02/21413 A2 (Zaplet, linked messages), US 2002/0075303 A1 (Nortel/Bell, virtual team environment), WO 02/65250 A2 (Invertix, presence/location for IM), US 2003/0060240 A1 (Graham, wireless image messaging), US 6,590,529 B2 (MySky, weather), WO 2004/064362 A1 and US 2004/0137967 A1 (GN Netcom, headset display), and JP 2003-011145 A (Ibiden, decorative board) — these speak to presence/buddy lists, notifications, message attachment, and peripheral hardware, none of which touch the delay-detection-plus-resumption-time-stamp combination.

3. Bottom line

• No single cited reference anticipates independent claims 1, 5, or 9 (or the dependents 2–4, 6–8, 10–12) under pre-AIA § 102. The reason is structural: the issued claims require the conjunction of (i) a predetermined quiet period, (ii) a subsequent resumption input, and (iii) a time stamp representative of that second (resumption) time. The closest references split this: Motorola '389 supplies (i) but no time stamp; Yamamoto / NEC supplies time-stamping but no quiet-period/resumption trigger; IBM '441 supplies a time-sensitive reply window; Fastmobile '044 supplies the conversation-display environment.
• These references are therefore best characterized as § 103 obviousness material. The patent's own prosecution reflects exactly that posture — the front page lists all 27 references, and the eventual invalidation (per the earlier summary section: PTAB IPR2019-00899 final written decision holding the challenged claims unpatentable, plus a § 101 district-court ruling affirmed in BlackBerry v. Facebook, Nos. 2020-1256/1258) did not turn on a clean § 102 reference.
• Claim-scope caution (cross-referencing the summary section): because the granted claims stamp the resumption time rather than the original message time, the "closest prior art" for anticipation purposes should be measured against that narrower language — none of the cited art does it.

4. Caveats / uncertainties

• Search budget exhausted before I could retrieve full text for every Tier-2/3 reference; those descriptions rely on the titles/assignee data in the patent's own citation list plus my background knowledge. Confirm bibliographic details against USPTO Patent Public Search / Espacenet for any dispositive use.
• I was unable to retrieve the IPR2019-00899 / IPR2019-00937 petitions and institution decisions, which would name the specific prior-art combinations actually asserted. The Tier-1 labels above (esp. Motorola '389 and Yamamoto '104841) are my inference of likely most-relevant art, not a confirmed record of the petitions.
• Date discrepancy to flag: the current task states "April 26, 2026," while the session operating date is 2026-09-28. I used neither as a substantive fact for the § 102 analysis (which is governed by the 2003-09-19 effective filing date); noting it only so the timeline is unambiguous.
• URLs relied on: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8301713B2](/patent/US8301713B2)/ (authoritative text); https://patents.google.com/patent/US6603389 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030104841 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US7305441B2 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US7111044B2.

I'll ground my obviousness analysis in the actual disclosures of the strongest prior-art references from the patent's own Prior Art section. Let me verify the key references.

Excellent — that surfaced the actual IPR2019-00899 exhibit list. Let me pin down the IPR ground and the remaining key references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,301,713 B2

Basis: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre‑AIA). The '713 application (13/111,675) was filed 2011‑05‑19 but is a continuation of 10/944,925 (filed 2004‑09‑20), which claims benefit of provisional 60/504,379 (2003‑09‑19). The '713 therefore carries a 2003‑09‑19 effective filing date, and pre‑AIA §§ 102/103 govern. All references below are evaluated for availability as of that date.

Scope note / honesty caveat: I anchored this analysis on the prior art listed on the patent page (the "Patent Citations (27)" / "Citations (24)" / "Family Cites Families" sections) and on the PTAB record the page itself links to. Two searches returned maximum-step truncation, so I could not pull the full text of every cited reference (e.g., the complete claim set of GB 2 350 746 A, and the disclosure detail of US 2004/0228531 A1). Where I rely on secondary characterizations rather than the reference's own text, I say so. I also flag a date trap that eliminates the single most on‑point reference (Kent, US 2005/0080866 A1) — see §6.

1. The claim as a whole

Three independent claims — 1 (method), 5 (non‑transitory CRM), 9 (device with display + memory + processor) — recite the same five‑step logic and rise/fall together. Element map of claim 1:

Dependent claims: 2/6/10 — the input is a "resumption message"; 3/7/11 — output a second indication for the resumption message; 4/8/12 — the time stamp is disposed between the first and second indications.

Critical construction point (carried over from the prior sections and worth re‑emphasizing): the granted claims require the time stamp to be "representative of the second time" — i.e., the resumption, not the non‑responded‑to message. The specification's headline embodiment (FIG. 4, "first time stamp 84 … 2:44 pm") is not what claim 1 covers; claim 1 tracks FIG. 5's "second time stamp 92." This narrows the claim to the resumption‑stamp variant — which materially strengthens the obviousness case, because re‑anchoring an existing timestamp onto the following message is a trivial design choice (see §§ 4–5).

POSITA: a person with a bachelor's in CS/EE (or equivalent) and ~2 years' experience designing wireless messaging/paging or mobile IM user interfaces — i.e., someone squarely familiar with two‑way paging systems (Motorola, NEC), e‑mail clients (NEC '746, Yamamoto), and desktop/mobile chat UIs.

2. The relevant prior art (as listed on the patent page)

3. Ground 1 (primary): Motorola '389 + Yamamoto '841

References: US 6,603,389 B1 in view of US 2003/0104841 A1; further in view of US 6,212,548 B1 / US 7,111,044 B2 (or US 2004/0228531 A1) for the "conversation" display element.

Claim 1 chart:

Why the combination is obvious (KSR rationales):

1. Same field, same problem. Both '389 and '841 concern wireless mobile messaging devices and both exist to tell a user something about the timing of messages. There is no field‑of‑endeavor barrier.
2. Known technique improving a similar device in the same way. '389 solves detecting the interruption but outputs only a generic alert; '841 supplies a known, space‑efficient way to display time information with a message (already used on mobile‑station e‑mail displays). Substituting '841's display mechanism for '389's bare alert yields the predictable result of an interruption‑aware conversation view.
3. The '713 states its own objective is to save display space by not showing every timestamp. '389 + '841 achieves exactly that: timestamps appear only when the timer fires — the very selectivity the '713 claims as its benefit, achieved by combining two references that individually avoid clutter.
4. Claim‑level "second time" limitation adds nothing. Once '389 + '841 place a timestamp at the timeout point, anchoring that stamp on the resumption event is a simple substitution (KSR) and a change in display position with no new function. Notably, the '713 specification treats "first time" vs. "second time" placement (FIGS. 7, 8a, 8b) as interchangeable alternatives — which the Federal Circuit treats as a strong indication of obviousness.

4. Ground 2: NEC '746 + a chat‑transcript reference (+ activity/timer reference)

References: GB 2 350 746 A (NEC) in view of US 6,212,548 B1 (AT&T) and/or US 7,111,044 B2 (Fastmobile) and/or US 6,519,639 B1 (Microsoft) — alternatively US 7,305,441 B2 (IBM).

• NEC '746 supplies elements B, C, E: detect a message requiring a reply, calculate a reply deadline, indicate the reply status including remaining time, and auto‑respond once the deadline passes — precisely "determining that a predetermined duration has elapsed … without a reply," with a displayed temporal output tied to that message.
• US 6,212,548 / 7,111,044 / 2004/0228531 supply element A (a displayed conversation of indications, on a wireless terminal in '044).
• US 6,519,639 supplies the generic inactivity‑detection primitive for element C where a hard deadline is not user‑set.
• Motivation: NEC's deadline/status display and the chat UIs address the same user need — understanding when something happened in a message thread — and combining a known message‑timer with a known chat transcript is the predictable use of prior‑art elements according to their established functions (KSR). Microsoft's IM‑UI reference ('531) provides an express reason to adapt e‑mail‑style time affordances to IM.

5. Dependent claims (2–4, 6–8, 10–12)

6. Two caveats that shape the analysis

(a) The most on‑point reference is NOT prior art — flagging explicitly.
US 2005/0080866 A1 (Kent), "Selectively displaying time indications for instant messaging (IM) messages," appears in the page's "Families Citing this family" section (i.e., it cites the '713 family). It is the closest conceivable art — selective IM timestamps. But its priority date is 2003‑10‑14, i.e., ~1 month AFTER the '713's 2003‑09‑19 priority date, and its U.S. filing (~2004‑10‑14) postdates the '713 parent's 2004‑09‑20 filing. Kent is therefore not available under § 102(a)/(b) and not available under § 102(e). Any invalidity theory built on Kent (or on the later‑published relatives) is date‑defective. The Motorola/NEC/Yamamoto combination in §§ 3–4 avoids this trap because every reference pre‑dates 2003‑09‑19.

(b) Corroboration from the PTAB (the page itself links these cases).
The ground set I derived from the page's cited art is consistent with how the matter actually resolved on the merits. In IPR2019‑00899 (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp v. BlackBerry, Pet. filed 2019‑03‑29), the Board instituted on claims 1–12 (Oct. 8, 2019) and, in its Final Written Decision dated Oct. 5–6, 2020, held "[a]ll challenged claims unpatentable — 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." The petitioners' obviousness case rested on US 7,366,779 (Crawford) in combination with the AOL Tour Guide (Watson), the "Babble" persistent‑conversation paper (Erickson, CHI '99), iChat Thought Bubbles (Missig), US 2004/0145608 (Fay), and others (Petitioner Exhibit List, Papers 1001–1023). Those exhibits are not among the page's own "Citations" list, so I treat them only as corroboration that a POSITA would have combined messaging‑transcript art with time‑display art, not as the primary ground. Note the key procedural fact: BlackBerry statutorily disclaimed claims 1–3, 5–7 and 9–11 (effective 2019‑12‑31), which removed the independent claims from the challenge and left only dependent claims 4, 8, 12 — the ones actually adjudicated at FWD.

7. Contradictions to flag in the record

• Prior section vs. the patent page on IPR2019‑00937. The patent page's litigation block lists both IPR2019‑00899 and IPR2019‑00937 as "(Final Written Decision)." The previously generated Litigation summary states 00937 (Snap) was settled/terminated 2019‑11‑26 with no FWD. These cannot both be right; I could not re‑verify 00937 before the search limit, so I leave the contradiction standing rather than resolve it.
• Specification vs. claims on "first time" vs. "second time." The Summary and FIG. 4 describe a stamp "representative of the first time"; claim 1 requires "representative of the second time." As noted in § 1, the claims are narrower — and more clearly obvious — than the headline embodiment.

8. Conclusion

On the references the patent page itself cites, claims 1–12 are prima facie obvious under § 103(a):

• Primary ground: US 6,603,389 (Motorola) — which expressly teaches the predetermined‑duration‑without‑response determination, the resumption input, and an output keyed to that condition — in view of US 2003/0104841 (Yamamoto) / GB 2 384 150 (NEC), which expressly teach associating, computing (ΔT) and displaying a time stamp with message data on a mobile station.
• Secondary ground: GB 2 350 746 (NEC) reply‑deadline/status indicator in view of the chat‑transcript references (US 6,212,548; US 6,370,563; US 7,111,044; US 2004/0228531) and the idle‑detection reference (US 6,519,639).
• Motivation is supplied by (i) the shared field of wireless messaging/HCI, (ii) the identical problem — informing a user of conversational timing without cluttering a small display, (iii) KSR rationales of known‑element combination, simple substitution, and predictable improvement, and (iv) the patent's own characterization of placement/format variants as design alternatives.
• The PTAB's § 318(a) FWD holding all challenged claims unpatentable in IPR2019‑00899 is strong corroboration, though on a partially different exhibit set.

Residual uncertainties: (1) I did not read the full text of GB 2 350 746 A or US 2004/0228531 A1; their characterizations here come from prosecution‑history excerpts and secondary sources and should be verified against the primary documents before any filing. (2) The Kent reference is conceptually ideal but date‑disqualified — do not build a ground on it. (3) The IPR2019‑00937 outcome is unresolved and the two generated sections conflict on it.