Invalidity dossier
US 8477758
Added 9/23/2026, 2:06:28 PM
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 8,477,758 B2
Title: Voice over Network (VoN)/Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Architect Having Hotline and Optional Tie Line
Patent Number: US 8,477,758 B2
Application Number: US 11/119,109
Filing Date: 2005-04-29
Publication Date (grant): 2013-07-02
Priority Date: 2001-12-21 (claimed from US 10/024,135)
Assignee (original): AT&T Intellectual Property I LP; also listed as current assignee alongside AT&T Delaware Intellectual Property Inc.
Inventors: Henry J. Kafka; Maria Adamczyk; Frederick C. Iffland; Anita Hogans Simpson; Stephen R. LaPierre; Karen M. McCourt; John Paul Ruckart
Status: Expired – Fee Related, adjusted expiration 2026-05-20
Purpose: The patent addresses delivery of voice service over a next generation network combining a telecommunications network and/or a data communications network—e.g., the PSTN and an IP network. It aims to eliminate VoN customer premises equipment (CPE) and on-site installation, reduce end-user cost, use a local loop (instead of DSL or other means) to connect customer premises POTS/analog telephones to VoN service, and re-use massive loop test (MLT) procedures for VoN lines to reduce technician training costs.
Plain-language scope: Per the excerpted text, a method for Voice over Network services includes decoding a VoN setup communications signal to associate an internal communications address with a directory communications address (e.g., a POTS telephone number), and establishing a VoN hotline for the communications address. The method may continue by presenting a dial tone to a communications device at the directory communications address, and receiving a called party's communications address from that directory communications address.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8477758/en
What the excerpt does not establish: The excerpt is explicitly partial and omits claim text, the full specification, and the drawings. It therefore does not establish the exact scope of any claim, the complete list of limitations, embodiments of the "tie line," or the specific prior-art references cited. Classifications and legal-status entries are noted as assumptions by the source itself.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:52:32 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8477758. 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.