US 8688111

Based on the full patent text you provided (authoritative source: Google Patents, US8688111B2) plus supplemental USPTO/patent-database and litigation search results, here is a concise summary.

Bibliographic data (verified)

• Patent number: US 8,688,111 B2 (read literally as "8688111" / application no. 13/718,054)
• Title: System, method, and device for providing communications using a distributed mobile architecture
• Inventor: ShaoWei Pan (sole named inventor)
• Assignee / Original Assignee: Lemko Corporation
• Application filing date: December 18, 2012
• Grant / issue date: April 1, 2014
• Priority date: March 30, 2006 (chain: continuation of 12/946,012, issued as U.S. 8,359,029, which is a divisional of U.S. 7,856,233 filed March 30, 2006)
• Status: Google Patents lists "Expired - Lifetime," with anticipated expiration listed as March 30, 2026. On March 25, 2025, Lemko Corporation entered a patent security agreement assigning the patent to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC as security holder.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A method includes receiving, at a first distributed mobile architecture (DMA) system, a call from a first mobile subscriber to a second mobile subscriber and determining whether the second mobile subscriber is registered with one of the first DMA system and a second DMA system based on information stored at an authentication, authorization, and accounting module. The information stored at the AAA module includes a first home location register storing information associated with mobile subscribers registered with the first DMA system and a first community location register storing information associated with a second HLR of the second DMA system."

Plain-language overview of the technology

The patent describes a "distributed mobile architecture" (DMA) — a low-cost, decentralized cellular system aimed at rural/underserved areas. Instead of routing all traffic through an expensive centralized mobile switching center (MSC) and base station controller (BSC), each DMA server (a small, self-contained unit with MSC/BSC functions) attaches directly to a base transceiver station (BTS), and DMA servers interconnect peer-to-peer over an IP network. Each DMA maintains:

• an HLR (home location register) for its own registered subscribers,
• a VLR (visitor location register) for roamers currently in its area, and
• CLRs (community location registers) that mirror the HLRs of neighboring/known DMAs so calls can be located and routed between DMA nodes without a central hub.

Independent claims (plain language)

Note: I could verify the existence and wording of independent claims 1 and 15 via patent databases, but I could not retrieve the complete granted claim set within this session. Treat the following as confirmed for claims 1 and 15, with uncertainty about the full count and any additional independent claims (e.g., other statutory categories).

• Claim 1 (apparatus): A DMA system (or device) configured to support a roaming subscriber. It: (a) receives registration information for a mobile subscriber who is currently located in the coverage area of a second DMA system in the DMA network; (b) receives a location-update request concerning that subscriber from a third DMA system; (c) forwards a second location-update request to the second DMA system; (d) receives back the subscriber's destination IP address from the second DMA system; and (e) sends that destination IP address to the third DMA system, enabling the third DMA system to place a call directly to the second DMA system over a peer-to-peer IP connection using its own source IP address and the subscriber's destination IP address. In short: a middle DMA node acts as a location-query relay so a calling DMA can find and call a roaming subscriber's current DMA directly.

• Claim 15 (method): A method of handling a call at a first DMA system from a first mobile subscriber to a second mobile subscriber. The system determines whether the second subscriber is registered with the first DMA system or with a second DMA system, using an authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) module whose stored information includes: (i) a first HLR for subscribers registered with the first DMA system, and (ii) a first CLR storing information associated with the second DMA system's HLR (with the second DMA system itself also having a second CLR). In plain terms: the call-routing method consults local HLR and community-location-register data to decide where the called subscriber is homed, enabling call completion across the distributed DMA network.

The patent's written description also discloses (and some of these may be claimed in other independent claims I could not fully verify) non-transitory storage-medium embodiments, an AAA-module structure with HLR/CLR/VLR data fields (IMSI, ESN, MDN, TLDN, registration/timer/preference indicators), methods for intra-DMA local call connection, and multi-DMA roaming call setup.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket note

• The patent is being asserted by Lemko in Lemko Corp. v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) / Affirmed Networks, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00363 (N.D. Tex.), which per a May 2025 report remained in the pleadings phase.
• My search of CAFC 2026 dockets for "8688111" returned no entries specifically for this patent number. The related Federal Circuit appeal I found (IPR2023-00531, notice of appeal filed September 16, 2024) concerns a different Lemko patent (the "'988 Patent," i.e., 7,855,988), not 8,688,111. I have no authoritative information indicating a 2026 CAFC appeal naming 8,688,111, and I did not find one in my searches.

Sources: Google Patents (US8688111B2 full text); RPX Insight patent record (claim text excerpts); Unified Patents / Darts-ip litigation metadata; Mondaq article ("AT&T Hit In Lemko's Edge Computing Campaign," May 9, 2025); Lemko Corp. news page; PTACTS filings referencing the N.D. Tex. case. Where the full claim set could not be retrieved, I have flagged the uncertainty rather than guessing.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent 8,688,111

Based on my searches, U.S. Patent 8,688,111 B2 ("System, method, and device for providing communications using a distributed mobile architecture," assigned to Lemko Corp., inventor ShaoWei Pan) is asserted in the following district court litigation. Google Patents' own record for the '111 patent links it to a Texas Northern District Court case (3:22-cv-00363), which is consistent with the case identified below.

1. Lemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Lemko Corporation
• Defendants: Microsoft Corporation; Affirmed Networks, Inc. (acquired by Microsoft in 2022)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
• Case number: 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (also indexed as 3:2022cv00363)
• Filing date: February 14, 2022 (the Unified Patents portal lists it as 2022-02-13; Lemko's own press release and docket sources say February 14, 2022)
• Patents in suit: The '111 patent is one of eight patents asserted (the others being U.S. Patent Nos. 7,548,763; 7,653,414; 7,855,988; 8,107,409; 9,191,980; 9,332,478; and 9,755,931). The Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 77) describes the '111 patent as "generally disclos[ing] receiving at a first DMA system, communications from a first mobile device directed to a second mobile device, and determining whether the second mobile device is registered with one of the first DMA system and a second DMA system based on information stored at an AAA module" — matching the '111 patent's abstract.
• Status / procedural history:
  • The case was assigned to Judge Sam A. Lindsay (Magistrate Judge: Rebecca Rutherford / BT).
  • In 2022–2024, defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state plausible claims under Rule 12(b)(6). On August 13, 2024, Judge Lindsay adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report (Doc. 79) and dismissed Lemko's direct and indirect infringement claims without prejudice, granting one final opportunity to amend (deadline September 6, 2024).
  • Lemko filed an amended complaint; defendants moved to dismiss again. According to Lemko's April 15, 2025 press release, the court denied Microsoft's motion to dismiss Lemko's direct and indirect patent infringement claims.
  • A May 2025 RPX/Mondaq article described the case as still "mired in the pleadings phase."
  • Caveat: The Unified Patents portal currently shows case 3:22-cv-00363 with a "Closed" status, which may indicate the case has since concluded or been terminated. I was unable (within my search limits) to retrieve a definitive final order, judgment, or settlement from the docket to confirm the precise manner and date of closure as of today (April 26, 2026). If you need the exact final disposition, PACER (N.D. Tex., case 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT) would be the authoritative source.

Related proceedings (not direct litigation of the '111 patent — included for completeness)

• IPR2023-00531 (Microsoft Corp. & Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp., PTAB) challenges U.S. Patent 7,855,988, not the '111 patent, although it arises from the same N.D. Tex. case. The Board issued a Final Written Decision on September 10, 2024 upholding patentability; Lemko appealed.
• CAFC Appeal No. 24-2336 (Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., Affirmed Networks, Inc.) is Lemko's appeal of the IPR2023-00531 Final Written Decision (concerning the '988 patent). On April 10, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (per the CAFC judgment). This appeal does not involve the '111 patent.
• Lemko Corp. v. AT&T (E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00305, filed March 17, 2025) does not assert the '111 patent (it asserts 7,840,230; 7,979,066; 8,224,322; 8,310,990; 8,340,667; 8,359,029; 9,198,020), so it is not '111 litigation.

Summary

The only district court litigation I found that directly asserts US 8,688,111 is Lemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (N.D. Tex.), filed February 14, 2022. The case has been through multiple dismissal rounds at the pleading stage; as of 2025 the court had denied a dismissal motion, but the current "Closed" status shown on Unified Patents suggests the case may have since terminated — I could not confirm the final outcome from the sources available to me. No other district-court cases, ITC proceedings, or PTAB IPRs specifically directed to the '111 patent were identified in my searches.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) on file for US 8,688,111. The USPTO Open Data Portal ingest shows no PTAB activity for this patent, and web searches — including targeted searches for "8,688,111" IPR, "US 8,688,111" PTAB petition, and 8688111 Lemko IPR — surfaced no petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision naming the '111 patent. The only PTAB matters found involve different Lemko patents in the same DMA family. The bottom-line defensive posture: no claim of the '111 patent has been tested, much less invalidated, in any AIA trial proceeding — the patent is currently "untested" at the PTAB, and any defendant would need to file the first IPR/PGR against it.

Related PTAB activity on sibling Lemko patents (flagged — not this patent)

Because US 8,688,111 is part of Lemko's DMA patent family and is asserted alongside sibling patents in the same litigation, a defendant should know that Microsoft / Affirmed Networks / AT&T have been running a coordinated PTAB campaign against Lemko — but none of these proceedings is on the '111 patent:

These were filed by Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. (IPR2023-00529/530/531) and Microsoft Corporation and AT&T Services, Inc. (IPR2025-01142), all tied to Lemko's district-court assertions (Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., No. 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT, N.D. Tex., filed 2022-02-14, later closed; and Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc., No. 25-cv-00305-JRG, E.D. Tex., filed 2025-03-17).

Critically: none of these dockets names US 8,688,111. The '111 patent is, however, described in the N.D. Tex. pleadings — the live pleading in 3:22-cv-00363 describes the "'111 Patent" as disclosing "receiving at a first DMA system, communications from a first mobile device directed to a second mobile device, and determining whether the second mobile device is registered with one of the first DMA system and a second DMA system based on information stored at an AAA module" — confirming it was an asserted patent in that litigation.

Strategic summary

Claim-level status of US 8,688,111. Every claim of the '111 patent — independent claims and dependents alike — is UNTESTED at the PTAB. No petitioner has filed an IPR, PGR, or CBM against it, so no claim has been canceled, sustained, or even challenged in an AIA proceeding. The structured ODP data and web research agree on this. The only "hardening" the patent has received is ordinary prosecution (it is a 2014 grant from a 2006 priority chain, with expired-lifetime status noted and anticipated expiration around 2026-03-30, i.e., roughly six months from today's date of 2026-09-02).

Estoppel landscape. Because there is no petitioner in any AIA proceeding on the '111 patent, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel binding anyone with respect to this patent. All prior-art grounds — § 102, § 103, and any § 112 challenges — remain fully available to any defendant. Notably, Microsoft/Affirmed/AT&T have not challenged this patent at the PTAB even though it was asserted against them in 3:22-cv-00363 (filed 2022-02-14) — they chose to petition only on the '414, '763, '988 (and later '990) patents. That silence is a signal worth probing: it may reflect a litigation settlement/coexistence, a decision that the '111 claims are less exposed on the art Microsoft assembled, or case-narrowing in the district court. If Lemko is asserting the '111 patent against you today, you are not boxed out of any ground — but you would be the first to test it.

Pattern signals. Microsoft (joined by Affirmed Networks and, later, AT&T) is a repeat PTAB petitioner against Lemko, having filed multiple coordinated IPRs on the DMA family in February 2023 and again in 2025. Lemko (Patent Owner) has defended aggressively — opposing institution on Fintiv and § 325(d) grounds (see the IPR2025-01142 discretionary-denial request) and appealing FWDs to the Federal Circuit (notice of appeal filed 2024-09-16 in the IPR2023-00529/00531 matters). The district-court chain shows Lemko is an operating company asserting its DMA portfolio. The N.D. Tex. case (3:22-cv-00363) is closed per Unified Patents litigation data, and the patent's assignment history shows a 2025-03-25 patent security agreement to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC — typical of monetization financing.

Recommended next steps

1. No PTAB activity exists on US 8,688,111 — say so plainly in any analysis. The absence is itself meaningful: this patent has been asserted in district court since at least 2022-02-14, and sophisticated defendants (Microsoft, Affirmed Networks) have filed multiple IPRs on Lemko's other patents yet have never petitioned on the '111 patent. Do not assume that means the patent is strong — it may simply reflect case narrowing, settlement, or the near-term expiration of the patent (anticipated 2026-03-30).

2. Before filing the first IPR, check the clock. Today is 2026-09-02, and the patent's anticipated expiration is 2026-03-30 — already passed on that projection. If the patent is expired (the Google Patents status line reads "Expired - Lifetime"), an IPR may still be available within the window for expired patents (an IPR can be brought on a claim that is not expired at filing, but challenges to expired-patent claims are generally limited in practical value), and validity can be raised as a defense in district court without PTAB estoppel concerns since no IPR has ever been filed. Verify the actual expiration/term (including any terminal disclaimer or patent-term adjustment) against the USPTO Patent Center record before investing in a petition.

3. If you are a defendant facing assertion of the '111 patent: no claim is canceled, so there is no FWD to quote as a litigation weapon. Instead, mine the sibling IPR records — particularly IPR2023-00529 (US 7,653,414) and IPR2023-00531 (US 7,855,988), both of which went to Final Written Decision on 2024-09-10 and are now on appeal (Federal Circuit). Those records contain the prior-art combinations (and expert testimony) Microsoft developed against the DMA architecture, which likely maps onto the '111 patent's HLR/CLR/VLR claims. The institution-denial decision in IPR2023-00530 (US 7,548,763, Paper 8, 2023-09-25) is also instructive — the Board there rejected Microsoft's hardware/computer-readable-medium arguments, a ruling Lemko is actively citing against Microsoft in IPR2025-01142. Check PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and the USPTO PTACTS portal for the final claim dispositions and CAFC docket numbers (the appeals were noticed 2024-09-16) before relying on any of this in a validity argument.

4. Monitor the pending IPR2025-01142 (US 8,310,990) — while it is a different patent, it is the same DMA family and the same Petitioner group. Its institution decision and any FWD will further map the art landscape and the Board's current view of Lemko's DMA claims, which may preview how a future challenge to the '111 patent would fare.

I was unable to pull live USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame data or correspondent details — the available search tool returned no additional records beyond what is embedded in the patent file itself (Google Patents legal events). Below is a reconstruction from the authoritative record I do have, with every gap flagged explicitly rather than filled in.

Inventors

• ShaoWei Pan — sole named inventor on US 8688111B2.
  • Employer at time of filing: Lemko Corporation (assignee on the executed inventor assignment; Pan is the founder and the original assignee's principal). This is an inventor-founder pattern — the opposite of the "inventors depart within 12 months before a fire-sale" tell.
  • Pan is also named on the parent filings (US 7,856,233 filed 2006-03-30; US 8,359,029 filed 2010-11-15), and the continuation US 13/718,054 (filed 2012-12-18) that matured into US 8688111.

Original assignee

• Lemko Corporation (listed by Google Patents as the current assignee; the issued patent's assignment-of-rights record names Lemko as assignee).
• Business: telecom infrastructure vendor. The patent claims and specification describe a "distributed mobile architecture (DMA)" — a compact, integrated MSC/BSC/HLR/VLR/AAA system designed to connect directly to third-party base transceiver stations for rural WLL, in-building, satellite, vehicular, and network-extension deployments. The specification repeatedly describes deployable, shipped systems (FIGS. 9–23, deployment/replacement methods), so the company's line of business was product/systems rather than licensing-only. Independent verification of actual commercial sales volume is limited; treat "shipped product" as asserted in the specification but not independently confirmed here.
• Current status: still the owner of record as of the 2025 security-agreement filing; otherwise operating status after that date is not verified from available sources. Note the patent itself is now expired by term (anticipated expiration 2026-03-30; Google Patents status "Expired - Lifetime").

Assignment timeline

The Assignment Center records for this patent were not retrievable through the tools available to me (no reel/frame or correspondent data returned). The two recorded events below are those reflected in the Google Patents legal-event feed for this patent, which is populated from USPTO assignment records. Reel/frame numbers and correspondent names could not be verified and are not fabricated here — confirm at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ before citing them.

• Executed: not shown / recorded 2012-12-18 — Reel/frame: not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: ShaoWei Pan
  • Assignee: Lemko Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-company assignment recorded on the same day the continuation application (13/718,054) was filed; establishes Lemko's title. Not a monetization event.

• Executed: not shown / recorded 2025-03-25 — Reel/frame: not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement (not an outright assignment of title)
  • Assignor/grantor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee/security holder: Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as Security Holder
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: Lemko pledged the patent (with its family) as collateral to a patent-focused funding entity roughly one year before the patent's natural expiration — consistent with debt financing or litigation funding, not a transfer of ownership to an asserting shell.

No cascading assignments, no merger/name-change records, and no transfer to a defensive aggregator appear on this patent's record. The absence of any full assignment away from Lemko is itself a finding: Lemko Corporation remains the owner; Piccadilly holds only a security interest.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8688111
    2006 : Filed by Lemko Corp
    2012 : Inventor assignment to Lemko
    2014 : Patent issued to Lemko Corp
    2022 : First infringement suit filed
    2025 : Security agreement to Piccadilly Funding
    2026 : Patent expired at term end

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only non-inventor transferee, Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, took a Patent Security Agreement (2025-03-25), i.e., a lien as security holder; title did not move to a licensing-only LLC. Lemko, the owner, is the original operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. No assignee in the recorded chain matches the classic Acacia/Marathon/IV/Wi-LAN/Pendrell list. Lemko is, however, the plaintiff-side party in the family litigation flagged on the record (US case, Texas Northern District Court, 3:22-cv-00363, per the Unified Patents litigation dataset link on the Google Patents page). Assertion activity exists; "known NPE list" membership does not.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Correspondent data was not retrievable; no finding either way. Do not infer recurrence without reel/frame evidence.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two recorded events, ~12 years apart; no chained LLC transfers.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The security agreement (recorded 2025-03-25) post-dates the 2022 N.D. Tex. suit, so it was not arranged to create standing for that suit; the inventor assignment (2012-12-18) predates the suit by a decade.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy proceeding appears in the record.
7. Privateering — not present / unclear. No operating-company-to-NPE assignment exists; Lemko itself holds and has asserted the patent. Whether the 2022 defendant was an actual competitor (true privateering/operating-company assertion) versus a carrier/implementer (monetization by a non-practicing operating company) could not be verified from available data.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. Chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — with a caveat.

The recorded chain is short and unremarkable: inventor → Lemko Corporation (the original operating company that describes and sells DMA systems in the patent itself), with only a 2025 security agreement in favor of Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC (a lender/security holder, not a title transferee). There are no shell-LLC transfers, no cascading assignments, and no known-NPE assignee — the strong NPE signals are all absent. Lemko initiated litigation on this family (N.D. Tex. 3:22-cv-00363) while still owner of record, which fits assertion by the originating operating company. The caveat: I could not verify that the 2022 defendant was an actual competitor (versus an implementer/carrier), and the patent expired 2026-03-30, so any characterization of current, forward-looking assertion is moot — the residual value is past-damages only. If the defendant proves not to be a market competitor, this would shade toward monetization-by-a-non-practicing-operating-company rather than classic NPE behavior.

Verify the recorded assignments (including reel/frame and correspondent) at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search US8688111) — those fields could not be confirmed with the tools available and should be checked before any formal filing or diligence relying on this chain.

I have to be transparent up front: despite multiple targeted searches, I was not able to retrieve the official USPTO "References Cited" (face-of-patent) list for US 8,688,111 B2 within this session's search budget. I will not fabricate that list. Below I give (a) the verified bibliographic anchor, (b) the § 102 framework that controls which references can be prior art at all, (c) the references I could verify from search results as being in/around this patent's family and citation network, with a provisional § 102 analysis, and (d) the exact URLs where the authoritative citation list must be pulled before this analysis is relied upon.

1. Verified patent anchor (no ambiguity)

• US 8,688,111 B2 — "System, method, and device for providing communications using a distributed mobile architecture"
• Inventor: ShaoWei Pan; Assignee: Lemko Corporation
• Appl. No. 13/718,054, filed December 18, 2012; granted April 1, 2014
• Priority chain: continuation of 12/946,012 (issued as US 8,359,029 B2, filed Nov. 15, 2010) → divisional of US 7,856,233 B2, filed March 30, 2006
• Verified sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8688111/en (full text); https://patents.google.com/patent/US8688111#1 (claim-text view); https://wiki.golden.com/wiki/US_Patent_8688111_... (bibliographic mirror)

2. § 102 framework that must be applied first (priority-date gate)

This application (13/718,054, filed Dec. 18, 2012) was filed before March 16, 2013, so pre-AIA § 102 governs. The decisive question for every candidate reference is whether the claim at issue is entitled to the benefit of the March 30, 2006 filing date (via 7,856,233 → 8,359,029 → 8,688,111).

• If a claim is entitled to the 3/30/2006 priority date: only references that were "prior art" before 3/30/2006 can anticipate under § 102(a)/(b)/(e). Anything published or first effective after that date — including Lemko's own earlier publication US 2006/0098661 A1 (published 5/11/2006) — is not § 102 prior art against that claim.
• If a claim is NOT entitled to that date (e.g., a later-added claim held to lack written-description support in the parent): the relevant date becomes the actual filing date in the chain (e.g., 11/15/2010 or 12/18/2012), and then pre-AIA § 102(b)'s one-year bar is measured from 12/18/2012 (cutoff: 12/18/2011). This is exactly the kind of priority-date fight that matters in the Lemko v. Microsoft/Affirmed litigation context.

So the first analytical step for any § 102 challenge is a priority-date entitlement analysis per claim, not a reference-by-reference search.

3. Candidate prior-art references (provisional — must be confirmed against the official citation list)

A. Lemko's own earlier-filed DMA disclosures (same family / same inventor)

A1. US 2006/0098661 A1 — "System, method and device for providing communications using a distributed mobile architecture"

• Inventor: ShaoWei Pan; Appl. 10/983,516; filed Nov. 8, 2004; published May 11, 2006
• Description (verified from retrieved text): a DMA server with MSC and BSC modules embedded in one computer-readable medium/housing, directly physically connected to a BTS; plural DMA servers interconnected over an IP network via peer-to-peer connections; DMA servers switch/route/hand-off calls; user data stored in HLR/VLR distributed "equally and fully" among the DMA servers.
• § 102 potential: This is the closest structural ancestor of the '111 disclosure. However, (i) it published 5/11/2006 — after the 3/30/2006 priority date, so it cannot be § 102 prior art against claims that receive the full priority benefit; and (ii) the retrieved disclosure text describes full HLR/VLR replication ("distributed equally and fully among all of the DMA servers") and does not appear to disclose the community location register (CLR) concept that is the core of independent claims 1 and 15 of '111 — a CLR being a register in one DMA that mirrors only the HLR of a specific other DMA. On its face it therefore looks unlikely to anticipate claim 15 (which expressly requires the first HLR + first CLR structure) or claim 1 (location-update relay through a middle DMA). It remains highly relevant as § 103 background and as the priority-day reference for the whole family.

A2. US 7,856,233 B2 (Pan; filed 3/30/2006; issued 12/21/2010) — the parent application whose disclosure 8,688,111 inherits. Not prior art (it is the priority document itself).

A3. US 8,359,029 B2 (Pan; filed 11/15/2010; issued 1/22/2013) — the immediate ancestor in the chain. Issued after 13/718,054 was filed (12/18/2012), and is commonly owned; not § 102 prior art.

A4. Other Lemko-family publications that surfaced in searches (each of these cites or is cited alongside '111 in third-party patent tables, but I could not confirm they appear on the face of '111): US 2008/0039144 A1 (Pan et al.), US 7,489,696 B2, US 7,539,158 B2, US 7,548,763 B2, US 7,659,414 B2, US 8,036,158 B2, US 8,089,920 B2, US 2011/0059740 A1, US 2012/0106454 A1. All are commonly owned, same-inventor DMA disclosures; none can be § 102 prior art against claims entitled to the 3/30/2006 date (all published/issued after that date), and each would need a priority-entitlement showing to be used at all.

B. Non-Lemko references that appeared in citation-network searches (verification status: NOT confirmed as face-of-'111 citations)

These surfaced because Google Patents shows them in proximity to '111 (i.e., they are citations in other patents' tables or they cite '111), not because I verified them on the '111 reference list:

• US 7,327,268 B1 (Foltak et al., "Maintaining a common AAA session ID for a call over a network," issued Feb. 5, 2008) — relevant to AAA session handling but I have not confirmed it is cited in '111; its issue date also post-dates the 3/30/2006 priority date.
• US 7,522,632 B2 (La Porta et al., "Multiple-protocol home location register and method of use," issued Apr. 21, 2009) — relevant to multi-protocol HLR operation; same verification/timing caveats.
• US 2009/0270097 A1 (Gallagher et al., "Method and Apparatus for User Equipment Registration Updates Triggered by a Tracking Area Change," published Oct. 29, 2009) — relevant to location/registration update signaling; post-dates 3/30/2006.
• US 2004/0156495 A1 (intermediary network system for message exchange between wireless networks) — pre-2006 publication date but again not verified as a citation of '111.

I deliberately will not assign these to "which claims of '111 they anticipate" because doing so would require confirming (i) that they are actually cited against '111 and (ii) retrieving their full disclosures — neither of which I could complete in this session.

4. What the claims require (for your own anticipation mapping)

From the earlier verified work in this analysis (RPX Insight claim excerpts):

• Claim 1 (apparatus) — a DMA system acting as a location-query relay: receives registration info for a subscriber located in a third DMA's coverage; receives a location-update request from a calling (first) DMA; forwards a second location-update request to the third DMA; receives the subscriber's destination IP address from the third DMA; sends it to the first DMA so the first DMA can place a peer-to-peer IP call directly to the third DMA.
• Claim 15 (method) — at a first DMA, receiving a call to a second subscriber; determining via an AAA module whether the subscriber is registered with the first DMA (first HLR) or a second DMA (first CLR mirroring the second DMA's HLR; the second DMA itself also having a second CLR).

The elements most likely to be the genuine points of novelty — and therefore the ones any § 102 challenger must find in a single reference — are: (a) the CLR construct (per-DMA mirror of another DMA's HLR), and (b) the relayed location-update + destination-IP-return mechanism enabling a direct peer-to-peer call to the serving DMA. The earliest family disclosure (A1, 2006/0098661) appears to lack (a), based on the portion of its text I retrieved.

5. Where to pull the authoritative reference list (next step)

The USPTO and Google Patents both expose the face-of-patent citations, but I could not fetch them in this session:

• USPTO Patent Center (application 13/718,054): https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/#!/applications/13718054 — "References Cited" tab and file-wrapper IDS history.
• USPTO PatFT full-text (PN/8688111): https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8688111.PN.&OS=PN/8688111&RS=PN/8688111
• Google Patents citations section for the '111 patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8688111B2](/patent/US8688111B2)/en (scroll to the "Citations" tab — this is the same authoritative source used for the full patent text you provided, and its citation tab was not included in the extraction given to me).

Bottom line

• Verified: US 8,688,111 B2 exists as described; priority chain to 3/30/2006 via 7,856,233 → 8,359,029; pre-AIA § 102 applies; Lemko's own US 2006/0098661 A1 (filed 11/8/2004, published 5/11/2006) is the earliest public family disclosure and is the most relevant technical ancestor — but it post-dates the 3/30/2006 priority date and, on the retrieved text, does not disclose the CLR feature central to claims 1 and 15.
• Not verified / cannot responsibly complete: the official face-of-'111 "References Cited" list and therefore a definitive per-reference, per-claim § 102 anticipation chart. Any of the non-Lemko candidates in Section 3.B must first be confirmed as actual citations of '111 (or as independent prior art in a validity challenge) before I will map them to claims.

If you can open the USPTO Patent Center or Google Patents citations tab for 13/718,054/US8688111 and paste the reference list, I can immediately produce the requested full-citation/date/description/§ 102-claim table for every reference on it.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 8,688,111 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Scope, provenance, and caveats (read first)

This analysis is necessarily provisional in three respects, and I state them up front rather than burying them:

1. Full claim set not verified. The earlier work in this file confirmed the substance of independent claims 1 and 15 (via RPX excerpts and the litigation pleadings describing the '111 abstract) but could not retrieve the complete granted claim set or the official "References Cited" list. The element-by-element mapping below therefore targets the two claim concepts that are verified: Claim 1 (apparatus/system — the relayed location-update mechanism) and Claim 15 (method — HLR/CLR registration determination at a first DMA). Dependent-claim analysis is flagged where I extrapolate from the specification's disclosed data fields.
2. Priority-date gate unresolved. Every § 102/§ 103 conclusion below depends on whether each claim is entitled to the March 30, 2006 filing date (via 7,856,233 → 8,359,029 → 13/718,054). Because 13/718,054 was filed before March 16, 2013, pre-AIA § 103(a) governs. I analyze both priority scenarios.
3. Some references were newly verified by live search in this session (e.g., Hohnstein = US 6,816,706 B1; Frost = US 4,284,848; Kalavade = US 7,136,651 B2; US 6,138,016; US 6,950,876/2002/0167906; RFC 2002/3220/3344). Others (e.g., "Meche") appear in the sibling-prosecution record but I could not verify their patent numbers or dates, and I do not assign them any.

The single most probative discovery of this session: the file history of the sibling Lemko patent 7,653,414 (IPR2023-00529, Ex. 1002) shows the examiner already rejected DMA-family claims over Hohnstein (alone), Hohnstein + Frost, and Meche + Hohnstein, and cited Kalavade for a "subscriber gateway with VLR, AAA, HLR modules within a housing." (Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2023-00529/Microsoft_Corporation/docs/02-15-2023-Petitioner/Exhibit-1002-Ex_1002____7,653,414_file_history.pdf). The '111 patent is in the same family and shares the DMA/HLR/VLR/CLR architecture, so that examiner record is direct evidence of how the art maps onto Lemko's DMA claims.

2. Legal framework

Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) governs (application filed 12/18/2012; priority chain to 3/30/2006). The Graham factors apply: (1) scope/content of prior art; (2) differences between prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; (4) secondary considerations. Because the relevant invention date is March 2006 (if priority holds), a challenger's motivation-to-combine showing would be evaluated under the law as understood at that time (the teaching-suggestion-motivation test was still in active use pre-KSR, though KSR v. Teleflex (2007) later confirmed that obviousness can rest on "common sense" and predictable combinations of known elements).

Person of ordinary skill (POSITA): an engineer with ~3–5 years' experience in cellular network architecture (IS-95/IS-2000/GSM), plus working knowledge of IP networking, VoIP/SIP, and IETF mobility protocols. The '111 specification itself is written to that audience (it assumes familiarity with ISUP, ANSI-41, GSM MAP, GRE, PDSN/GGSN, Mobile IP).

Priority-date effect on the art:

The references I rely on below are, with one flagged exception, all pre-3/30/2006, so the combination analysis is robust even under the pro-patentee priority scenario.

3. Verified prior-art inventory (with dates and provenance)

Key structural insight from the search results: the pre-2006 art already contained every architectural ingredient of the '111 claims except the specific "CLR" label — (i) distributed/de-centralized cellular switching over packet links (Hohnstein; Lemko's own 2004-filed application), (ii) per-node HLR/VLR subscriber tracking with registration and location updates (IS-41/GSM MAP; the MP-HLR patents; 6,138,016), (iii) HLR-to-HLR register mirroring (5,594,942), and (iv) IP-level mobility where a home node returns the mobile's current point-of-attachment address so a correspondent can reach it directly (Mobile IP). The claimed "destination IP address" returned through the home DMA so the calling DMA can open a peer-to-peer IP call to the serving DMA is the IP analog of the IS-41 TLDN/MSRN return and of Mobile IP's route-optimization binding.

4. Claim feature decomposition (as verified; provisional)

Claim 15 (method) — at a first DMA system of a DMA network: receive a call from a first mobile subscriber directed to a second mobile subscriber; determine, using an AAA module, whether the second subscriber is registered with (i) the first DMA (via a first HLR of the first DMA) or (ii) a second DMA (via a first CLR stored at the first DMA, where the CLR stores information associated with a second HLR of the second DMA, and the second DMA itself has a second CLR).

Claim 1 (apparatus/system) — a DMA system configured to support a roaming subscriber: receive registration information for a subscriber located in a third DMA's coverage area; receive a location-update request from a first (calling) DMA; forward a second location-update request to the third DMA; receive the subscriber's destination IP address from the third DMA; send it to the first DMA, enabling the first DMA to connect the call to the third DMA over a peer-to-peer IP connection based on the first DMA's source IP and the returned destination IP.

The genuinely contested concepts are: (a) the CLR — a register in one DMA that mirrors the HLR of a specific peer DMA (as opposed to a VLR for current roamers, full replication of all data, or a central supervisor database); and (b) the relayed location update that returns an IP address to enable a direct peer-to-peer call to the serving DMA.

5. Obviousness combinations

5.1 Combination A — Distributed DMA architecture with per-node subscriber registers

Primary reference: Hohnstein (US 6,816,706), optionally in view of US 6,138,016 and/or US 6,950,876 (La Porta).

• Hohnstein discloses a de-centralized wireless system: plural distribution points 40 interconnected point-to-point (wired 44/48 or wireless radio links 46), each serving access points 22 that define cells, with packet switching (ATM/TCP/IP/802.x), a gateway 50 to external networks, and location tracking of subscriber units identifying with which distribution point each subscriber is currently communicating (supervisor 56 / WSLR). (Verified: PTAB petition papers and the '414 file history.)
• US 6,138,016 discloses a distributed HLR: multiple CPUs each with a corresponding HLR storing a subset of subscribers, plus VLRs, with dynamic partitioning — i.e., subscriber records deliberately spread across the nodes rather than held in one central HLR.
• US 6,950,876 / 2002/0167906 (La Porta) discloses HLR entities handling registration notification, update-location, insert-subscriber-data, and VLR cancel flows between switching nodes.

Why combine (motivation): The '111 background states the problem Hohnstein already solved — a conventional MSC/BSC/HLR system is too costly for rural/low-density areas, and a centralized MSC is a bottleneck and single point of failure. Hohnstein expressly motivates replacing the centralized MSC/BSC topology with distributed packet-connected nodes (verified: the '414 file history quotes Hohnstein at col. 1–2 criticizing the MSC bottleneck/rigid BSC architecture). A POSITA seeking to add standard cellular subscriber mobility to Hohnstein's packet network would look to the standard HLR/VLR toolkit and to the known distributed-HLR literature (6,138,016; La Porta) — giving each distribution point a local HLR for its own subscribers and a VLR for visitors. That is the DMA/HLR/VLR skeleton of claims 1 and 15. The examiner's own rejections in the sibling '414 prosecution confirm this is a natural mapping, not hindsight.

5.2 Combination B — Claim 15's HLR/CLR determination

Hohnstein (US 6,816,706) + IS-41/GSM-MAP HLR/VLR practice + a register-mirroring/distributed-HLR reference (US 5,594,942 and/or US 6,138,016).

Element mapping (provisional, claim 15):

Why combine (motivation): With Hohnstein's supervisor 56 as the only location authority, every call termination requires a query to a central node — recreating the very bottleneck Hohnstein set out to remove. The standard, predictable fix taught across the cellular art is to cache subscriber location/profile data closer to the serving nodes (that is literally what a VLR does; it is what 5,594,942 does at the HLR-to-HLR level; it is what 6,138,016 does by partitioning records across HLRs). Storing a mirror of each peer DMA's HLR in a per-peer register (the CLR) is the direct application of those known techniques to Hohnstein's peer-to-peer topology: each distribution point pre-fetches/caches the subscriber data of the peers it is directly linked to, eliminating the central supervisor query for intra-network calls. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the technique (register mirroring/caching of subscriber records) was routine and the only new step was choosing which records to mirror — those of directly-connected peers, mirroring the point-to-point adjacency Hohnstein already builds.

Honest caveat (Lemko's best argument): No single reference I verified discloses a register that (i) is distinct from a VLR, (ii) mirrors only specific peer nodes' HLRs, and (iii) is consulted for called-subscriber registration determination. Hohnstein's WSLR is administered by a separate supervisor, not stored per distribution point; the '414 applicant successfully argued that Hohnstein "teaches away" from embedding HLR modules in the distribution point (the supervisor is separate). Whether the CLR limitation is obvious therefore turns on a fact-intensive motivation showing — a genuine weak point for a § 103 challenger on claim 15 as I understand it.

5.3 Combination C — Claim 1's relayed location update returning an IP address for a direct peer-to-peer call

IS-41/GSM MAP call-delivery procedure + Mobile IP (RFC 2002/3220/3344) + an IP-interconnected distributed architecture (Hohnstein; and, for context only, Lemko's own 2006/0098661).

Element mapping (provisional, claim 1):

Why combine (motivation): This is the strongest § 103 case. The '111 claim 1 chain is, in substance, the standard IS-41 roaming call-delivery message flow with the TLDN replaced by an IP address and the trunk call replaced by a peer-to-peer IP session. Every element of the relay chain — registration reported homeward, LOCREQ to the home HLR, ROUTREQ to the serving system, routing number returned to the originator, and direct originator-to-serving call setup — was mandatory, standardized behavior in IS-41/GSM networks before 1995, documented in the IS-41.5-B literature verified above. The only delta is the transport identity: using the serving node's IP address as the routable destination. That delta is (i) taught by Mobile IP (home agent stores the mobile's care-of IP address; route optimization returns it to correspondents for direct delivery) and (ii) an obvious design choice once the DMA network is an IP peer-to-peer network, because the IP address is the routable endpoint address — a POSITA would not need any inventive step to return an IP address instead of a telephone number over an IP signaling channel. The motivation is cost/performance: keeping the media path direct (peer-to-peer) avoids hair-pinning voice through the home DMA — the same motivation Mobile IP route optimization documents (reduced latency and backbone load), and the same motivation Hohnstein documents for distributing switching in the first place.

6. Summary of the strongest combination and why

Best § 103 case (highest confidence): Claim 1 (and any claim reciting the relayed location-update/destination-IP-return/peer-to-peer-call flow) over IS-41/ANSI-41 (or GSM MAP) in view of IETF Mobile IP (RFC 2002/3344), optionally with Hohnstein supplying the distributed, IP-interconnected, non-centralized node architecture. The motivation is documented in the references themselves (standardized call delivery; Mobile IP's own route-optimization rationale), the substitution of an IP address for a TLDN is a predictable variation in an all-IP network, and the result (direct caller-to-serving-node call setup) is the express goal of Mobile IP route optimization. This combination does not depend on the CLR at all, so it sidesteps Lemko's strongest feature.

Second-best (moderate confidence): Claim 15's HLR/CLR determination over Hohnstein + standard HLR/VLR practice + register-mirroring/partitioned-HLR art (5,594,942 / 6,138,016 / La Porta 6,950,876). This is a plausible combination but the CLR concept — a per-peer mirror of a specific other DMA's HLR, distinct from a VLR — is the claim element least clearly present in any single verified reference, and the '414 prosecution history shows the family's applicants successfully distinguished Hohnstein's separate-supervisor/WSLR design. Expect this combination to be the battleground.

Contextual, non-prior-art reference: Lemko's own US 2006/0098661 A1 (filed 11/8/2004, published 5/11/2006) — cannot be used as § 102/§ 103 art against claims entitled to the 3/30/2006 priority date (same inventor; publication after the priority date). Its practical value is (i) claim-construction context showing what the applicant regarded as the DMA architecture, and (ii) a § 102(b) statutory-bar weapon if any '111 claim is found not entitled to the 2006 priority date — because it published 5/11/2006, more than one year before the 12/18/2012 filing. That makes the priority-date/support analysis of every claim a gateway issue that should be investigated first, before any substantive obviousness investment.

Evidence that the combinations are legally viable: the examiner's rejections in the sibling '414 patent's file history (Hohnstein alone over system claims; Meche+Hohnstein over method claims; Hohnstein+Frost over dependent claims; Kalavade for VLR/AAA/HLR-in-a-housing) demonstrate that a PHOSITA — here, a USPTO examiner — independently found Hohnstein to map onto Lemko's DMA-network claim language. The '111 claims share the DMA architecture, so that record is highly probative, though the '414 claims (destination-preference-register features) differ from the '111 claims (CLR/location-update/IP-return features).

7. Lemko's strongest counterarguments (anticipated)

1. The CLR is not a VLR, not full replication, and not a central WSLR. The specification is careful: each DMA's HLR data is also provided at a CLR of specific other DMAs (FIG. 4), while the VLR holds only current roamers. No verified reference discloses this three-register (HLR/VLR/CLR) per-node structure. The distributed-HLR art either partitions records (6,138,016), fully mirrors for redundancy (5,594,942), or centralizes location authority (Hohnstein's supervisor).
2. Hohnstein teaches away from embedding HLR/MSC/BSC functionality in the distribution point — its supervisor is separate by design, and its disclosure criticizes the MSC/BSC architecture (per the '414 applicant's successful arguments). A teaching-away finding would defeat Combination A/B against any claim requiring embedded HLR/CLR modules.
3. Secondary considerations: the specification targets a documented long-felt, unmet need (rural telephony at <$2M system cost); the family has been commercially asserted and (in the sibling IPR2023-00529/00531 proceedings on the '988 and '414 patents) the PTAB upheld patentability in Final Written Decisions (September 10, 2024), which — while not on the '111 patent — signals the Board has not found the DMA-family claims obvious on Microsoft's art.
4. No IPR has ever been filed against the '111 patent, despite it being asserted in Lemko v. Microsoft/Affirmed (3:22-cv-00363, N.D. Tex.) since February 2022. Sophisticated petitioners challenged four sibling patents but never the '111 — consistent with either a litigation narrowing, a settlement, or a judgment that the '111 claims (particularly the CLR and IP-return features) are the family's most defensible.

8. What must be verified before this analysis is relied upon

1. Full granted claim set of '111 (USPTO Patent Center, application 13/718,054 — References Cited tab and claims) and the file wrappers of 7,856,233 and 8,359,029 (to test priority entitlement per claim — the single highest-leverage question).
2. Kalavade's effective filing date (US 7,136,651 B2, issued 11/14/2006) — if filed before 3/30/2006 it is § 102(e) art; otherwise unusable against full-priority claims.
3. Identity and dates of "Meche" (unverified; appears in the '414 file history).
4. Exact issue date of US 6,138,016 (appears to be ~2000; verify).
5. Whether the PTAB's favorable FWDs in IPR2023-00529/00531 (on sibling patents) are on appeal and whether their art overlaps the '111 claim elements.

9. Bottom line

• Claim 1's relayed-location-update/IP-return/peer-to-peer mechanism is the most vulnerable to a § 103 challenge: it is the standardized IS-41/GSM-MAP roaming call-delivery procedure (LOCREQ → ROUTREQ → TLDN return → direct call to serving MSC) translated to IP addresses, with the IP translation and direct-delivery rationale supplied by IETF Mobile IP (RFC 2002/3344). Motivation and reasonable expectation of success are documented in the references themselves. Confidence in this combination: moderate-to-high (subject to retrieving the actual claim language).
• Claim 15's HLR/CLR determination is a closer call: Hohnstein plus distributed/mirrored-HLR art (6,138,016, 5,594,942, La Porta) provides a credible roadmap, but the per-peer CLR concept is the family's most distinctive feature and no verified single reference squarely discloses it. Confidence: moderate, with the CLR limitation as the likely differentiator.
• No reference combination of which I am aware reads cleanly onto the full HLR/VLR/CLR three-register structure, and the complete absence of any IPR against the '111 patent despite years of assertion is a meaningful real-world signal. Any validity campaign should therefore lead with the priority-date/support analysis and the claim-1 IS-41 + Mobile IP combination, and should treat claim 15's CLR feature as the principal risk to overcome.

Key sources: Docket Alarm '414 file history (IPR2023-00529 Ex. 1002); Docket Alarm/PTACTS Hohnstein papers (US 6,816,706, issued 11/9/2004); US 6,138,016 claims text; La Porta US 6,950,876/2002/0167906; US 5,594,942; IS-41.5-B parameter text; US 6,496,691; 3GPP2 N.S0028; RFC 2002/3220/3344 and WPI/Uni-Bonn Mobile IP materials; earlier verified work in this file (claims 1/15 characterization; priority chain; PTAB/litigation status).