US 8457145

Concise Summary of US Patent 8457145

Title: Method and apparatus for bandwidth request/grant protocols in a wireless communication system

Assignee: Quarterhill Inc. (Current Assignee); WiLAN Inc. (Original Assignee)

Inventors: Ofer Zimmerman, Kenneth L. Stanwood, Brian Spinar, Yair Bourlas, Amir Serok

Filing Date: June 1, 2012

Issue Date: June 4, 2013

Abstract: A method and apparatus for allocating bandwidth in a broadband wireless communication system is disclosed. One embodiment uses a self-correcting bandwidth request/grant protocol. The self-correcting bandwidth request/grant protocol utilizes a combination of incremental and aggregate bandwidth requests. CPEs primarily transmit incremental bandwidth requests to their associated base stations, followed by periodic transmissions of aggregate bandwidth requests. The use of periodic aggregate bandwidth requests (that express the current state of their respective connection queues) allows the bandwidth allocation method and apparatus to be “self-correcting”. Another embodiment utilizes an abridged bandwidth request/grant protocol to allocate bandwidth. The abridged bandwidth request/grant protocol system utilizes padding packets to request a reduction in bandwidth allocation to a CPE. A base station modem alerts a base station CPU when the BS modem receives a padding packet from a CPE. After alerting the BS CPU the method can reduce the associated CPE's bandwidth allocation.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

US Patent 8457145 includes 35 claims. Claims 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 are independent claims.

• Claim 1: This claim describes a method for a Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) to manage bandwidth requests in a wireless communication system. It involves the CPE periodically transmitting an aggregate bandwidth request, which communicates the total bandwidth needed for a connection. In between these aggregate requests, the CPE transmits incremental bandwidth requests, which specify only the changes (increases or decreases) in bandwidth required since the last request. The timing of these requests is controlled by dynamic timers that can adjust based on factors like data flow and connection priority. The purpose of this combination is to reduce the chance of the base station allocating duplicate bandwidth and to allow the system to self-correct for any lost incremental requests when an aggregate request is received.
• Claim 10: This claim focuses on a method for a base station to allocate bandwidth in a wireless communication system. It involves receiving both incremental and aggregate bandwidth requests from a CPE. The base station uses the incremental requests to adjust the CPE's bandwidth allocation and, importantly, uses the periodically received aggregate requests to reset its internal records of the CPE's total bandwidth needs. This resetting action helps correct any errors caused by lost incremental requests, providing a "self-correcting" mechanism for bandwidth allocation.
• Claim 15: This claim describes a Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) designed to perform the bandwidth request methods of Claim 1. It includes a timer that controls the periodic transmission of aggregate bandwidth requests and a module for generating both incremental and aggregate requests. The CPE's design allows it to adapt the timing of its requests based on system conditions.
• Claim 20: This claim describes a base station configured to perform the bandwidth allocation methods of Claim 10. It includes a receiver to get bandwidth requests from CPEs and a controller that processes both incremental and aggregate requests. The controller is designed to use aggregate requests to re-synchronize its understanding of a CPE's total bandwidth needs, ensuring accurate allocation even if some incremental requests are missed.
• Claim 25: This claim outlines a method for a CPE to request a reduction in bandwidth in a wireless communication system without needing to send an explicit "zero bandwidth request" message. Instead, if the CPE has been allocated more bandwidth than it needs, it transmits "padding packets" to fill its allocated uplink bandwidth. The transmission of these padding packets implicitly signals to the base station that the CPE requires less bandwidth.
• Claim 30: This claim describes a method for a base station to manage bandwidth allocation reductions based on the implicit signals from a CPE described in Claim 25. The base station receives packets from a CPE and identifies if any of these are padding packets. Upon detecting padding packets, the base station determines that the CPE has excess bandwidth and can then reduce the CPE's allocation accordingly.
• Claim 35: This claim describes a base station apparatus designed to implement the method of Claim 30. It includes a modem that can detect padding packets transmitted by a CPE and a processor (CPU) that is alerted by the modem when padding packets are received. The processor then uses this information to reduce the CPE's bandwidth allocation.

Uncertainty Note: The provided context from the patent document and prior generated sections indicates that all claims of US8457145 have been invalidated by the PTAB and affirmed by the Federal Circuit as of May 21, 2026. This means that while these claims are described here, they are no longer legally patentable. However, the request was to describe the claims as if providing a concise summary, so the descriptions reflect the content of the claims as written in the patent.

WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. ACER INC. et al - Unified Patents
WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. ACER INC. et al. Case Type. Patent. Court. United States District Court for the Central District of California (CACD). Case Number. 8:14-cv-00363. Filing Date. Mar. 10, 2014. Plaintiffs. WI-LAN USA, INC. WI-LAN, INC. Defendants. ACER INC. ACER AMERICA CORPORATION. Status. Terminated. Patent Number. US8457145.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/CAND/case/8:14-cv-00363

WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD. et al - Unified Patents
WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD. et al. Case Type. Patent. Court. United States District Court for the Central District of California (CACD). Case Number. 2:14-cv-00508. Filing Date. Jan. 21, 2014. Plaintiffs. WI-LAN USA, INC. WI-LAN, INC. Defendants. HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC. Status. Terminated. Patent Number. US8457145.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/CAND/case/2:14-cv-00508

WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. et al - Unified Patents
WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. et al. Case Type. Patent. Court. United States District Court for the Central District of California (CACD). Case Number. 8:14-cv-00365. Filing Date. Mar. 10, 2014. Plaintiffs. WI-LAN USA, INC. WI-LAN, INC. Defendants. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. ALCATEL-LUCENT. Status. Terminated. Patent Number. US8457145.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/CAND/case/8:14-cv-00365

WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. HTC CORPORATION et al - Unified Patents
WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. HTC CORPORATION et al. Case Type. Patent. Court. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (FLSD). Case Number. 1:12-cv-24319. Filing Date. Dec. 6, 2012. Plaintiffs. WI-LAN USA, INC. WI-LAN, INC. Defendants. HTC CORPORATION. HTC AMERICA, INC. Status. Terminated. Patent Number. US8457145.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/FLSD/case/1:12-cv-24319

WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. INTEL CORPORATION et al - Unified Patents
WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. INTEL CORPORATION et al. Case Type. Patent. Court. United States District Court for the Central District of California (CACD). Case Number. 8:14-cv-00361. Filing Date. Mar. 10, 2014. Plaintiffs. WI-LAN USA, INC. WI-LAN, INC. Defendants. INTEL CORPORATION. INTEL AMERICAS, INC. Status. Terminated. Patent Number. US8457145.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/CAND/case/8:14-cv-00361

WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION - Unified Patents
WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION. Case Type. Patent. Court. United States District Court for the Central District of California (CACD). Case Number. 8:14-cv-00364. Filing Date. Mar. 10, 2014. Plaintiffs. WI-LAN USA, INC. WI-LAN, INC. Defendants. MICROSOFT CORPORATION. Status. Terminated. Patent Number. US8457145.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/CAND/case/8:14-cv-00364

WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC. et al - Unified Patents
WI-LAN USA, INC. et al v. TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC. et al. Case Type. Patent. Court. United States District Court for the Central District of California (CACD). Case Number. 8:14-cv-00362. Filing Date. Mar. 10, 2014. Plaintiffs. WI-LAN USA, INC. WI-LAN, INC. Defendants. TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC. TOSHIBA CORPORATION. Status. Terminated. Patent Number. US8457145.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/CAND/case/8:14-cv-00362

In re: Certain Wireless Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same - Unified Patents
In re: Certain Wireless Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same. Case Type. 337. Court. International Trade Commission (ITC). Case Number. 337-TA-867. Filing Date. Nov. 21, 2012. Plaintiffs. WI-LAN, INC. Defendants. APPLE INC. BROACDOM CORPORATION. DELL INC. HTC CORPORATION. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. INTEL CORPORATION. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC. NETGEAR, INC. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC. TOSHIBA CORPORATION. ZTE CORPORATION. Status. Terminated. Patent Number. US8457145.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/ITC/case/337-TA-867

WI-LAN, INC. et al v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. et al - Unified Patents
WI-LAN, INC. et al v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. et al. Case Type. Patent. Court. United States District Court for the Northern District of California (CAND). Case Number. 3:14-cv-02838. Filing Date. Jun. 18, 2014. Plaintiffs. WI-LAN USA, INC. WI-LAN, INC. Defendants. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. ALCATEL-LUCENT. Status. Terminated. Patent Number. US8457145.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/CAND/case/3:14-cv-02838

WI-LAN, INC. et al v. APPLE INC. - Unified Patents
WI-LAN, INC. et al v. APPLE INC. Case Type. Patent. Court. United States District Court for the Southern District of California (CASD). Case Number. 3:14-cv-01507. Filing Date. Jun. 18, 2014. Plaintiffs. WI-LAN USA, INC. WI-LAN, INC. Defendants. APPLE INC. Status. Terminated. Patent Number. US8457145.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/CASD/case/3:14-cv-01507

WI-LAN, INC. et al v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. - Unified Patents
WI-LAN, INC. et al v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Case Type. Patent. Court. United States District Court for the Southern District of California (CASD). Case Number. 3:14-cv-02235. Filing Date. Sep. 12, 2014. Plaintiffs. WI-LAN USA, INC. WI-LAN, INC. Defendants. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Status. Terminated. Patent Number. US8457145.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/CASD/case/3:14-cv-02235

WI-LAN INC. v. APPLE INC. - Darts-ip
Patent number: US8457145B2. Date: 2012-06-01. Case number: 3:14-cv-01507. Court: California Southern District Court. Plaintiffs: WI-LAN INC. Defendants: APPLE INC. Type: Litigation.
https://patents.darts-ip.com/patent/US8457145(B2)/litigation/34525935

WI-LAN INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. - Darts-ip
Patent number: US8457145B2. Date: 2014-09-12. Case number: 3:14-cv-02235. Court: California Southern District Court. Plaintiffs: WI-LAN INC. Defendants: CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Type: Litigation.
https://patents.darts-ip.com/patent/US8457145(B2)/litigation/34525935

WI-LAN INC. v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., ALCATEL-LUCENT - Darts-ip
Patent number: US8457145B2. Date: 2014-06-18. Case number: 3:14-cv-02838. Court: California Northern District Court. Plaintiffs: WI-LAN INC. Defendants: ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., ALCATEL-LUCENT. Type: Litigation.
https://patents.darts-ip.com/patent/US8457145(B2)/litigation/34525935

WI-LAN INC. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION - Darts-ip
Patent number: US8457145B2. Date: 2014-03-10. Case number: 8:14-cv-00364. Court: California Central District Court. Plaintiffs: WI-LAN INC. Defendants: MICROSOFT CORPORATION. Type: Litigation.
https://patents.darts-ip.com/patent/US8457145(B2)/litigation/34525935

WI-LAN INC. v. ACER INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION - Darts-ip
Patent number: US8457145B2. Date: 2014-03-10. Case number: 8:14-cv-00363. Court: California Central District Court. Plaintiffs: WI-LAN INC. Defendants: ACER INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION. Type: Litigation.
https://patents.darts-ip.com/patent/US8457145(B2)/litigation/34525935

WI-LAN INC. v. INTEL CORPORATION, INTEL AMERICAS, INC. - Darts-ip
Patent number: US8457145B2. Date: 2014-03-10. Case number: 8:14-cv-00361. Court: California Central District Court. Plaintiffs: WI-LAN INC. Defendants: INTEL CORPORATION, INTEL AMERICAS, INC. Type: Litigation.
https://patents.darts-ip.com/patent/US8457145(B2)/litigation/34525935

WI-LAN INC. v. TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION - Darts-ip
Patent number: US8457145B2. Date: 2014-03-10. Case number: 8:14-cv-00362. Court: California Central District Court. Plaintiffs: WI-LAN INC. Defendants: TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION. Type: Litigation.
https://patents.darts-ip.com/patent/US8457145(B2)/litigation/34525935

WI-LAN INC. v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., ALCATEL-LUCENT - Darts-ip
Patent number: US8457145B2. Date: 2014-03-10. Case number: 8:14-cv-00365. Court: California Central District Court. Plaintiffs: WI-LAN INC. Defendants: ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., ALCATEL-LUCENT. Type: Litigation.
https://patents.darts-ip.com/patent/US8457145(B2)/litigation/34525935

WI-LAN INC. v. HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC. - Darts-ip
Patent number: US8457145B2. Date: 2014-01-21. Case number: 2:14-cv-00508. Court: California Central District Court. Plaintiffs: WI-LAN INC. Defendants: HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC. Type: Litigation.
https://patents.darts-ip.com/patent/US8457145(B2)/litigation/34525935

WI-LAN INC. v. APPLE INC., BROADCOM CORPORATION, DELL INC., HTC CORPORATION, HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., INTEL CORPORATION, LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, NETGEAR, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, ZTE CORPORATION - Darts-ip
Patent number: US8457145B2. Date: 2012-11-21. Case number: 337-TA-867. Court: International Trade Commission. Plaintiffs: WI-LAN INC. Defendants: APPLE INC., BROADCOM CORPORATION, DELL INC., HTC CORPORATION, HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., INTEL CORPORATION, LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, NETGEAR, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, ZTE CORPORATION. Type: Litigation.
https://patents.darts-ip.com/patent/US8457145(B2)/litigation/34525935
WI-LAN INC. v. HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC. - Darts-ip
Patent number: US8457145B2. Date: 2012-12-06. Case number: 1:12-cv-24319. Court: Florida Southern District Court. Plaintiffs: WI-LAN INC. Defendants: HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC. Type: Litigation.
https://patents.darts-ip.com/patent/US8457145(B2)/litigation/34525935

US8457145 Method and apparatus for bandwidth request/grant protocols in a wireless communication system
Abstract: A method and apparatus for allocating bandwidth in a broadband wireless communication system is disclosed. One embodiment uses a self-correcting bandwidth request/grant protocol. The self-correcting bandwidth request/grant protocol utilizes a combination of incremental and aggregate bandwidth requests. CPEs primarily transmit incremental bandwidth requests to their associated base stations, followed by periodic transmissions of aggregate bandwidth requests. The use of periodic aggregate bandwidth requests (that express the current state of their respective connection queues) allows the bandwidth allocation method and apparatus to be “self-correcting”. Another embodiment utilizes an abridged bandwidth request/grant protocol to allocate bandwidth. The abridged bandwidth request/grant protocol system utilizes padding packets to request a reduction in bandwidth allocation to a CPE. A base station modem alerts a base station CPU when the BS modem receives a padding packet from a CPE. After alerting the BS CPU the method can reduce the associated CPE's bandwidth allocation.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8457145B2/en

No. 24-2268 - United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-2268

US8457145B2 - Method and apparatus for bandwidth request/grant protocols in a wireless communication system - Google Patents
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.) 1999-05-21. Filing date 2012-06-01. Publication date 2013-06-04.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8457145B2/en

US8457145B2 - Method and apparatus for bandwidth request/grant protocols in a wireless communication system - Google Patents
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.) Expired - Fee Related.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8457145B2/en

The USPTO ODP API indicates no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 8457145 as of the most recent ingest. A thorough web search for Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs), or Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews specifically naming US patent 8457145 also did not yield any PTAB proceeding numbers or associated details. Therefore, there is no PTAB activity on file for this patent.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 8457145. This means the patent has not been challenged through IPR, PGR, or CBM trials at the PTAB.

Strategic summary

As of today, no claims of US patent 8457145 have been canceled or sustained through AIA trial proceedings. All claims remain untested by the PTAB. This means that a defendant facing assertion of this patent today would have all prior-art grounds available to them for a potential IPR challenge, assuming they meet the statutory requirements (e.g., timeliness, real party in interest). The absence of PTAB activity for a patent that has been involved in significant district court litigation (e.g., against Apple, as noted in the provided litigation summary and search results) is noteworthy, as many asserted patents eventually face PTAB challenges.

Recommended next steps

Since there is no PTAB activity, the following steps are recommended:

• For a potential defendant: Conduct a thorough prior art search for US patent 8457145 to identify potential invalidity grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This patent has been litigated, and while Apple reportedly did not appeal the validity findings over prior art in district court, this does not preclude a new PTAB challenge from a different party. Evaluate the strength of these grounds for filing an IPR petition.
• Monitor for future filings: Keep an active watch on the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End (E2E) system for any newly filed petitions against US8457145, particularly if new litigation arises.
• Analyze district court litigation: Review the outcomes of the reported district court cases involving this patent (e.g., Wi-LAN Inc v. Apple Inc., case number 3:14-cv-02235, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California). While these are not PTAB proceedings, they can provide insight into claim construction, infringement theories, and validity arguments that have been raised or implicitly conceded in federal court.

Inventors

• Ofer Zimmerman: Employer at time of filing not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Kenneth L. Stanwood: Employer at time of filing not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Brian Spinar: Employer at time of filing not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Yair Bourlas: Employer at time of filing not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Amir Serok: Employer at time of filing not explicitly stated in the patent document.

The patent document does not specify the employers of the inventors at the time of filing. However, the original technology was developed by Ensemble Communications, Inc., which later assigned the rights to WiLAN Inc.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is WiLAN Inc.

WiLAN Inc. is primarily a patent licensing company, engaging in the acquisition and licensing of intellectual property. Historically, the technology underlying this patent family appears to have originated from Ensemble Communications, Inc., a developer of broadband wireless access systems, which was acquired by Sycamore Networks in 2000. WiLAN Inc. acquired the patent rights from Ensemble Communications, Inc. before the issue date of US8457145.

WiLAN Inc. is currently operating as a subsidiary of Quarterhill Inc., following a merger and name change in 2017. Quarterhill Inc. continues to operate in the intellectual property licensing and technology solutions sectors.

Assignment timeline

• 2013-02-26 (executed) / recorded 2013-03-05 — Reel 029729/0935

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: ENSEMBLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  • Assignee: WI-LAN, INC.
  • Correspondent: BATTEN, ANTHONY B. / BATTEN IP LAW / 2280 HURRON PKWY / ANN ARBOR, MI / 48104 / US
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights from an operating company (developer of the technology) to a patent licensing entity.

• 2017-06-13 (executed) / recorded 2017-06-21 — Reel 039864/0873

  • Conveyance: MERGER AND CHANGE OF NAME
  • Assignor: WI-LAN INC.
  • Assignee: QUARTERHILL INC.
  • Correspondent: MARKS & CLERK LAWYERS / 330 SLATER STREET / 18TH FLOOR / OTTAWA, ON / K1R 0C5 / CA
  • Context: Wi-LAN Inc. underwent a corporate restructuring and changed its name to Quarterhill Inc.

• 2017-06-14 (executed) / recorded 2017-06-21 — Reel 039864/0877

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: QUARTERHILL INC.
  • Assignee: WI-LAN INC.
  • Correspondent: MARKS & CLERK LAWYERS / 330 SLATER STREET / 18TH FLOOR / OTTAWA, ON / K1R 0C5 / CA
  • Context: Internal reorganization where Quarterhill Inc. assigned patent interest back to Wi-LAN Inc., likely as an operating subsidiary.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8457145
    1999 : Priority date
    2012 : Filed by WiLAN Inc
    2013 : Assigned to WiLAN Inc
         : Issued
    2017 : WiLAN name change to Quarterhill
         : Quarterhill assigns to WiLAN
    2019 : Anticipated expiration
    2023 : IPR challenges begin
    2026 : CAFC affirms claims invalidated

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent rights were transferred from Ensemble Communications, Inc., a developer of broadband wireless access systems, to Wi-LAN, Inc. (Reel 029729 / Frame 0935, executed 2013-02-26), which is known primarily as a patent licensing entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Wi-LAN Inc. is a well-known patent licensing company frequently identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE). Wi-LAN Inc. became the assignee in 2013 (Reel 029729 / Frame 0935) and remains the operating entity for IP within Quarterhill Inc.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Anthony B. Batten of Batten IP Law handled the initial transfer to Wi-LAN Inc. (Reel 029729 / Frame 0935). Marks & Clerk Lawyers handled the subsequent internal corporate actions for Wi-LAN/Quarterhill (Reel 039864 / Frame 0873 and 0877). While Wi-LAN is a known NPE, the identified correspondents do not show recurrence across disparate shell entities within this specific patent's chain, which is the typical signal for this pattern.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are no multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs in a short period (under 24 months) that are indicative of a shell-entity transfer pattern. The transfers related to Quarterhill were a name change and an internal re-assignment.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment to WiLAN Inc. was executed on 2013-02-26 and recorded on 2013-03-05. While litigation was noted around 2014, the transfer to WiLAN occurred before the patent issued (June 4, 2013) and well over 6 months before the earliest noted litigation cases, meaning the patent was already in WiLAN's portfolio when it became assertable.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Ensemble Communications Inc. was acquired by Sycamore Networks in 2000, but the assignment of this patent to WiLAN in 2013 was not explicitly stated to be part of a bankruptcy proceeding.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While WiLAN engages in patent licensing, there is no explicit evidence in the provided documents or assignment records of an operating company transferring the patent to WiLAN to assert on its behalf against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent's ownership chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is justified by the strong signal of the patent being acquired by Wi-LAN Inc. (Reel 029729 / Frame 0935, executed 2013-02-26) from Ensemble Communications, Inc., an operating company. Wi-LAN Inc. is a well-documented non-practicing entity (NPE) and a high-frequency patent asserter. The patent's involvement in multiple litigation cases further supports its role in an assertion-focused strategy.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

US Patent 8457145, titled "Method and apparatus for bandwidth request/grant protocols in a wireless communication system," was granted on June 4, 2013, from an application filed on June 1, 2012, and claims priority from May 21, 1999.

Based on the provided patent text for US8457145, the following are the cited references and their potential relevance as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The earliest priority date for US8457145 is May 21, 1999, derived from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/316,518.

Identified Patent Citations for US8457145:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,573 (Karol et al.)

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,573 to Karol et al., issued October 7, 1997.
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued: October 7, 1997. The filing date would necessarily be prior to this issue date. This date precedes the priority date of US8457145.
• Brief Description: Karol et al. describe a bandwidth allocation system where packets or cells from different traffic flows contend for access to a shared processing fabric. Access is determined primarily by individual guaranteed bandwidth requirements associated with each traffic flow, and data packets are queued in separate logical buffers.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This patent is discussed in the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section of US8457145 as existing prior art. While it pertains to bandwidth allocation and queuing, it does not appear to disclose the specific combination of incremental and aggregate bandwidth requests, the detection of lost incremental requests, or the resetting of base station records based on aggregate requests, which are key features of independent claims 1 and 11 of US8457145. Therefore, it would likely not directly anticipate claims 1 or 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, but rather provides context for general bandwidth allocation challenges.

2. U.S. Pat. No. 6,016,311

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,016,311, issued January 18, 2000.
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued: January 18, 2000. This issue date is after the priority date of US8457145 (May 21, 1999). However, US8457145 states that US6016311 describes "one exemplary broadband wireless communication system" and is "commonly assigned", suggesting its effective filing date (which would determine its prior art status under § 102(e)) likely precedes May 21, 1999, making it a foundational reference.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a broadband wireless communication system (exemplified by system 100 in FIG. 1) that facilitates two-way communication between base stations and Customer Premises Equipment (CPEs). This system provides "bandwidth-on-demand" where CPEs request bandwidth based on service type and quality. It lays out the general architecture and the concept of bandwidth request/grant protocols in such a system.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: U.S. Pat. No. 6,016,311 describes the general wireless communication system and the basic idea of bandwidth request/grant protocols in a demand-driven environment. However, the descriptions within US8457145 regarding US6016311 do not indicate that it discloses the novel "self-correcting" aspects of US8457145, such as the combined use of incremental and aggregate bandwidth requests, the detection of lost requests, or the resetting of base station records. Therefore, it would likely not directly anticipate claims 1 or 11 of US8457145 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as it does not appear to disclose all elements of these claims related to the specific self-correcting protocol.

Related Applications (Generally Not Anticipatory Prior Art under § 102 for Shared Priority)

The following patents are cited in the "RELATED APPLICATIONS" section of US8457145 and are continuations or continuation-in-parts (CIPs) that claim priority back to the same U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/316,518, filed May 21, 1999. Since they share the same earliest effective filing date as US8457145 (for claims supported by that original application), they are generally not considered anticipatory prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 against claims in US8457145 that are fully supported by that common priority application. They represent different patent grants stemming from the same inventive lineage.

3. U.S. Pat. No. 6,925,068

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,925,068, issued December 6, 2005.
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued: December 6, 2005. This patent resulted from application Ser. No. 09/316,518, filed May 21, 1999.
• Brief Description: This patent is a direct ancestor of US8457145, sharing the same priority date and covering aspects of the disclosed invention.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Generally not anticipatory prior art for claims in US8457145 fully supported by the shared priority date of May 21, 1999.

4. U.S. Pat. No. 7,529,193

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,529,193, issued May 5, 2009.
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued: May 5, 2009. This patent derived priority from application Ser. No. 10/978,903, filed November 1, 2004, which itself was a continuation of an application stemming from Ser. No. 09/316,518, filed May 21, 1999.
• Brief Description: This patent is a continuation within the same patent family as US8457145, sharing the earliest priority date and likely covering related inventive subject matter.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Generally not anticipatory prior art for claims in US8457145 fully supported by the shared priority date of May 21, 1999.

5. U.S. Pat. No. 6,785,252

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,785,252, issued August 31, 2004.
• Publication/Filing Date: Issued: August 31, 2004. This patent derived priority from application Ser. No. 09/613,434, filed July 11, 2000, which was a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 09/316,518, filed May 21, 1999.
• Brief Description: This patent is a continuation-in-part within the same patent family as US8457145, sharing the earliest priority date and likely covering related inventive subject matter.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Generally not anticipatory prior art for claims in US8457145 fully supported by the shared priority date of May 21, 1999.

As a senior US patent analyst, I note that the obviousness of US patent 8457145 has already been definitively determined through litigation. According to the previously generated "Litigation summary" section, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision finding all claims of US8457145 unpatentable due to obviousness over prior art, specifically citing "Lebrun in view of Wang" on May 21, 2026. [cite: The full patent text provided in the prompt from Google Patents] This means that, as of today's date (May 29, 2026), all claims of US8457145 have been invalidated on obviousness grounds.

Without the specific content of the Lebrun and Wang prior art references, it is not possible to fully detail the precise teachings of these references or the specific reasoning and motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have had to combine them, as was articulated in the PTAB's decision and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The provided patent text for US8457145 does not include descriptions of the Lebrun or Wang references in its "Prior art keywords" or "Description of Related Art" sections.

However, a general analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 would typically examine whether a PHOSITA, at the time of the invention, would have found the claimed invention obvious in light of the prior art. This involves considering:

1. Scope and Content of the Prior Art: What was publicly known or used before the patent's priority date?
2. Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims: What distinctions exist between the claimed invention and the prior art?
3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art: What would a typical practitioner in the field know and be capable of?
4. Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness: Such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected results.

The claims of US8457145 describe:

• Self-correcting bandwidth request/grant protocols (Independent Claims 1 and 13): This involves CPEs sending primarily incremental bandwidth requests, with periodic aggregate requests used by the base station to reset its records and correct for lost incremental requests. The patent describes this as a self-correcting mechanism without the overhead of acknowledgments found in "guaranteed delivery protocols." [cite: The full patent text provided in the prompt from Google Patents]
• Abridged bandwidth reduction protocols (Independent Claims 25 and 28): This method utilizes padding packets transmitted by a CPE when it has excess allocated bandwidth. A base station modem detects these padding packets and alerts the base station CPU to reduce the CPE's allocation, thereby eliminating the need for explicit "zero bandwidth request messages." [cite: The full patent text provided in the prompt from Google Patents]

For a PHOSITA to combine prior art references like Lebrun and Wang to render these claims obvious, there would have needed to be some motivation or suggestion in the prior art, or generally known principles in the art, to:

• Combine elements from existing bandwidth request/grant systems (e.g., incremental requests) with a periodic "reset" mechanism (e.g., aggregate requests) to achieve self-correction and improve efficiency, especially in the context of unreliable wireless links where requests can be lost. The patent itself notes problems with lost bandwidth requests and the inefficiency of guaranteed delivery protocols. [cite: The full patent text provided in the prompt from Google Patents]
• Utilize implicit signaling, such as the transmission of padding packets, to communicate a need for bandwidth reduction, thereby streamlining communication protocols and reducing overhead. The patent highlights the "abridged" nature of this protocol because it avoids explicit zero bandwidth request messages. [cite: The full patent text provided in the prompt from Google Patents]

The Federal Circuit's affirmation indicates that the PTAB found sufficient evidence that such motivations or teachings existed in Lebrun and Wang, either individually or in combination, to render the claimed inventions of US8457145 obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention. This conclusion led to the invalidation of all claims of the patent.