US 8761739

I'll verify the current status of this specific patent before summarizing.

Let me verify the IPR outcome and the Federal Circuit matter involving this patent.

US Patent 8,761,739 B1 — Analyst Summary

Verification note up front: I ran targeted searches against the PTAB docket, the CAFC opinions/orders pages and Federal Circuit reporting for exactly the identifier 8761739 / 8,761,739. Everything below is keyed to that number; no similar-numbered patents (e.g., 8,471,739, 8,761,738) are blended in. Where I could not retrieve a primary document, I say so.

1. Bibliographic record

Priority chain (per the specification's cross-reference and the Google Patents family data): 13/893,225 (2013-05-13) is a continuation of 13/615,365 (2012-09-13, now US 8,442,501), which continues 13/287,040 (2011-11-01, US 8,447,289), which continues 13/047,718 (2011-03-14, US 8,090,356), which continues 09/591,381 (2000-06-09, US 7,929,950), itself a continuation-in-part of 09/281,739 (1999-06-04, US 6,169,789), itself a continuation-in-part of the abandoned 08/764,903 (1996-12-16).

Because the 1996 priority claim is pre-AIA, the IPR filings argued obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

2. Abstract (quoted from the patent)

"A wireless communication and control system including a wireless device and a server configured as a primary repository or exchange to deliver various functions to the wireless device is disclosed. There is a server for storing communication protocols and control protocols and communicating the communication protocols and selectively communicating the control protocols between the wireless device and the central server. A communication protocol configures the system for communication and control protocols configure the system as one of a selection of intelligent appliance controllers. Alternately the control protocols configure the system as one of a selection of Internet terminals. The wireless device is any hand-held communication device, such as a hand-held computing device, wireless telephone, or cellular phone."

3. The independent claim, in plain language

There is only one independent claim, so it carries the entire scope of the patent. Claim 1 (broken into its elements):

1. A wireless communication system with a wireless device that supports both voice and data;
2. a server;
3. a memory coupled to the wireless device, with a processor coupled to the memory;
4. the memory stores "functional instructions" that provide multiple functions to the wireless device, and at least one of those instructions is for switching between networks, where the networks include at least one public or wireless carrier network;
5. user-specific information of the wireless device is stored on the server; and
6. the memory also stores multiple communication protocols that facilitate communication between a server and the wireless device, with the server acting as a "primary repository or exchange" to deliver functions to the device — and the server enables "dynamic conversion" of the device from a first function to a second function.

In short: a phone/PDA-class device whose feature set and network mode are reconfigured under the direction of a network server that also holds the user's profile data.

The dependent claims (2–18) map to specific capabilities, several of which are the commercially significant ones:

• Cl. 2 – dynamic switching between local networks and public carrier networks (the claim the Board and the CAFC focused on as the preclusion trigger);
• Cl. 3 – a local network switchbox acting as a WLAN box;
• Cl. 4 – remote controller for copiers/fax machines;
• Cl. 5 – control of home intelligent appliances "including any of a TV, over, microwave, and other appliances" (note: "over" appears literally in the printed claim; it is not an artifact of my transcription);
• Cls. 6–8 – power/energy management and household device control;
• Cl. 9–10 – TV functions and door-opener control;
• Cl. 11 – keypad, sound or voice actuated commands in one or more languages;
• Cl. 12 – tunable power levels, channel bandwidths and operating frequencies;
• Cl. 13 – streaming content from an Internet server;
• Cl. 14 – functioning as a regular telephone handset;
• Cl. 15 – the server is a component of the wireless device;
• Cl. 16 – the wireless device is configured to function as a server;
• Cl. 17 – functions include intelligent-device control, IP telephony, video, TV, audio and e-mail;
• Cl. 18 – wireless carrier network includes GSM, private network includes a WLAN for home or office.

4. Post-grant validity: the patent's claims were cancelled in IPR

This is the single most important fact about this patent today, and it is not visible from the front page alone.

• IPR2022-00980, Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, was filed May 9, 2022 (Petitioners: Apple Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.)). Tech Center 2600, Art Unit 2641.
• The petition challenged claims 1–3, 5–6, 10, 13, and 16–18 (as listed in the Kotzin declaration, Ex. 1003) over combinations including Rautiola, Regnier, Sainton, Grube, Gillig and Cohn.
• The proceeding reached a Final Written Decision on September 26, 2023, and the Board found the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. Smart Mobile did not appeal, so the deadline to appeal expired.
• An inter partes review certificate (IPRC, kind code K1) issued January 5, 2024, for IPR2022-00980.
• The patent is separately recorded as lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees, effective June 24, 2022 (37 C.F.R. § 1.362 entry dated Aug. 1, 2022).

Uncertainty flag: I did not retrieve the four corners of the Final Written Decision or the certificate PDF. The challenged-claim set (1–3, 5–6, 10, 13, 16–18) comes from the petitioner's expert declaration, and the finding that "all challenged claims" were held unpatentable comes from IPWatchdog's reporting of the prior IPRs. I therefore cannot independently confirm from primary text which claim numbers were physically cancelled by the K1 certificate, or the disposition of the unchallenged claims (4, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 15) — though the fee lapse renders the distinction largely academic.

5. CAFC 2026 docket — the '739 patent's role

You asked specifically about 2026 CAFC dockets. The '739 patent was not itself the subject of a 2026 appeal (its IPR was never appealed). It appears in 2026 only as the preclusion predicate in a case about a sibling patent:

• Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, No. 2024-1352 (Fed. Cir.), decided January 21, 2026, nonprecedential, opinion by Judge Reyna (panel: Lourie, Reyna, Chen).
• The appeal arose from IPR2022-00981 on U.S. Patent No. 8,472,936. Apple argued that because the Board had found claim 1 of the '739 patent unpatentable in IPR2022-00980 (and claims of U.S. 8,442,501 unpatentable in IPR2022-00808), and those decisions were never appealed, issue preclusion barred the Board from reaching a contrary conclusion on the substantially similar '936 claim 1.
• The CAFC agreed, applied the four-factor issue-preclusion test (same issue; actually litigated; essential to the judgment; full and fair opportunity), held claim 1 of the '936 patent unpatentable, and vacated and remanded as to the dependent claims because the Board's analysis of them rested entirely on its claim-1 conclusion.
• The court separately upheld the Board's construction of "dynamically configurable" as requiring configuration without the need for user intervention.
• An errata sheet issued February 23, 2026 correcting the opinion's misidentifications of "the '968 patent" (→ '936) and "the '729 patent" (→ '739) — i.e., the published opinion originally contained erroneous patent numbers, which is why search results referencing "the '968 patent" for this reasoning are transcription noise, not a different patent.

Sources: CAFC opinion 24-1352 (Jan. 21, 2026) · CAFC errata (Feb. 23, 2026) · IPWatchdog, Jan. 21, 2026 · PTAB docket IPR2022-00980

6. Litigation history (context)

The family has been actively litigated. Recorded district-court matters include W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00701 and 6:21-cv-00603, and N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-04168 (the Texas case against Apple was transferred to the Northern District of California, where it remained pending as of the 2026 CAFC decisions). The '739 patent's own IPR, however, terminated at the Board.

7. Explicit uncertainties

• Assignee chain: the recorded assignments show IP Holdings, Inc. → Smart Mobile, Inc. (2015) → Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (2020), plus several 2020 assignments from individual Rao family members. Google's "Current Assignee" field says Smart Mobile Technologies LLC; I did not verify current ownership against the USPTO assignment database directly.
• Expiration: Google Patents lists both an "anticipated expiration" of 2016-12-16 (20 years from the 1996 priority) and a 2022 maintenance-fee lapse. These are not reconciled in the record I retrieved; the operative status entry is the 2022 fee lapse.
• Claim-level cancellation: as noted in §4, I inferred the cancelled claim set rather than reading the certificate.
• Claim 15 ("the server is a component of the wireless device") is drafted as a dependent claim but is functionally a different architecture than claim 1 — worth flagging if you are analyzing scope, though it is moot given the IPR outcome.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8761739. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me search for the specific cases referenced in the patent record.

Let me get details on the California case, the Apple case outcome, and the PTAB proceeding.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,761,739 ("'739 patent")

Important interpretation note: I have treated the number as literally 8761739 / 8,761,739 and have excluded results for numerically or typographically similar patents (e.g., 8,671,739 / 8,673,927). The '739 patent is titled "Dynamically configurable IP based wireless devices and networks," lists inventors Raman K. Rao, Sanjay K. Rao, and Sunil K. Rao, and is currently held by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC. It is now expired (lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees, effective 2022-06-24).

Below is what is known. The plaintiff in all the district-court matters was Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (SMT), an affiliate of the Rao inventors.

1. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc.

• Court/Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (Judge Alan D. Albright)
• Case No.: 6:21-cv-00603 (a/k/a 6:21-cv-00603-ADA)
• Filed: June 11, 2021
• Patents asserted: 13 patents, including the '739 patent (Exhibit D to the complaint), plus U.S. 8,442,501; 8,472,936; 8,472,937; 8,824,434; 8,842,653; 8,982,863; 9,019,946; 9,049,119; 9,191,083; 9,319,075; 9,614,943; and 9,756,168.
• Accused products: Apple iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple TV, etc. (alleged "dynamic switching" between Wi-Fi and cellular networks).
• Status/Outcome: Apple moved to transfer venue to the Northern District of California; the WDTX denied transfer (Doc. 135, Aug. 28, 2023). Apple separately moved to stay pending IPR. (See related N.D. Cal. action below.) Confirm current docket status via PACER; the WDTX docket is reported as closed/transferred in some databases.

2. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.)

• Court/Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (Judge Alan D. Albright)
• Case No.: 6:21-cv-00701 (a/k/a 6:21-cv-00701-ADA-DTG)
• Filed: July 1–2, 2021 (dockets show July 2, 2021)
• Patents asserted: 12 patents, including the '739 patent, plus the '501, '936, '937, '434, '653, '946, '119, '083, '943, '168, and 9,084,291 patents.
• Accused products: Samsung Galaxy S/Note/J/A and Tab series devices and the Galaxy Store platform.
• Status/Outcome: The court issued a Claim Construction Order on Sept. 2, 2023 (Markman hearings Aug. 18 and 31, 2023). The case ended in a dismissal with prejudice (reported around July 15, 2024), on a joint motion that also sought vacatur of the claim construction order, with each party bearing its own costs. (Case was reported as lasting roughly July 2021–July 2024.)

3. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal.)

• Court/Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division (Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.; later reassigned to Judge William Alsup)
• Case No.: 3:23-cv-04168 (a/k/a 3:23-cv-04168-WHA)
• Filed: August 16, 2023
• Status/Outcome: The case was stayed pending inter partes review — Apple's unopposed motion to stay was granted Sept. 19, 2023 (Doc. 146). The docket is flagged as "STAYED." The complaint lists the '739 patent (Exhibit D) among the asserted patents.

(Note: Because Apple's WDTX transfer motion was denied while a parallel N.D. Cal. action also appears on the dockets, the exact relationship between case 6:21-cv-00603 and 3:23-cv-04168 — whether one was refiled/transferred — should be confirmed directly in PACER. I could not fully resolve that from the available search results.)

4. PTAB Post-Grant Proceeding — IPR2022-00980

• Caption: Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Petitioners) v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (Patent Owner)
• Forum: USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
• Proceeding No.: IPR2022-00980 (directed at U.S. Patent No. 8,761,739)
• Filed: May 9, 2022 (effective date listed as May 9, 2022); instituted December 5, 2022
• Outcome/Status: A Final Written Decision issued, and an Inter Partes Review Certificate was issued January 5, 2024 (per the patent's legal-events record: "TRIAL NO. IPR2022-00980, MAY 9, 2022 … IPR2022-00980, MAY 9, 2022 … INTER PARTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE ISSUED JAN. 5, 2024"). Related companion IPRs were filed against the sibling patents (e.g., IPR2022-00979 ('119), -00981 ('936), -00982 ('937), -00766, -00807, -00808, -01002 to -01005, -01222, -01223, -01248, -01249). I was not able to confirm from the available sources whether the FWD cancelled or upheld all challenged claims — the issuance of an IPR certificate is a formal step that follows the FWD, but I did not verify the specific claim-by-claim result, so that detail should be checked against the PTAB record.

Summary Table

Caveats and verification notes

• These four matters are the litigation/PTAB items flagged on the patent's Google Patents page (which links data from Unified Patents and Darts-ip). The Unified Patents portal and PACER/CAFC remain the authoritative sources; I recommend verifying each docket directly (the WDTX Apple docket is reported as closed, and the N.D. Cal. action as stayed).
• I did not find any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeal involving the '739 patent in the search results. If one exists (e.g., an appeal from IPR2022-00980), it did not surface; confirm via CAFC records.
• The '739 patent has expired (maintenance-fee lapse effective 2022-06-24), which affects the practical status of any remaining enforcement.
• No other district-court cases asserting the '739 patent were identified beyond those above; however, because search coverage can be incomplete, absence of additional cases here should not be treated as a definitive negative.

Would you like me to attempt to pull the specific IPR2022-00980 Final Written Decision claim outcome or the exact WDTX dismissal order for the Samsung case?

I'll start by searching for the PTAB proceeding referenced in the patent record and any related AIA trials.

Significant finding — the patent record itself references IPR2022-00980 with a Final Written Decision and an IPR certificate. Let me dig into claim-level outcomes and related proceedings.

Let me get the claim-level detail from the IPR2022-00980 Final Written Decision and the resulting certificate.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,761,739

⚠️ Data-source flag (read first)

The structured block states that the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is incorrect or stale. The authoritative full patent text supplied in this same prompt contains, in its own "Legal Events" table, an inter partes review certificate for this exact patent:

"2024-01-09 | IPRC | … INTER PARTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE; TRIAL NO. IPR2022-00980, MAY 9, 2022 INTER PARTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE FOR PATENT 8,761,739, ISSUED JUN. 24, 2014, APPL. NO. 13/893,225, MAY 13, 2013 INTER PARTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE ISSUED JAN. 5, 2024"

…and the same page lists a litigation block: "PTAB case IPR2022-00980 filed (Final Written Decision)" with petitioner Unified Patents' PTAB portal link, plus "Petitioner: Unified Patents PTAB Data." I therefore cannot treat this as a no-activity patent. One AIA trial is on file for the '739 patent: IPR2022-00980. I flag the ODP gap rather than propagate it.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file for U.S. 8,761,739 — IPR2022-00980 (Apple/Samsung v. Smart Mobile) — and it ended in a Final Written Decision cancelling every challenged claim, followed by an IPR certificate issued 2024-01-05; the patent owner never appealed. Breakdown: active 0 · claims invalidated 1 · claims sustained 0 · settled 0 · institution denied 0. Defensive posture: this is the best possible posture for a defendant. The patent's sole independent claim was adjudicated unpatentable in a final, unappealed decision that has now been reduced to a statutory certificate cancelling the claims — and, separately, the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2022-06-24. An assertion letter citing claims 1–18 today has essentially no viable infringement theory attached to it.

IPR2022-00980 — Apple Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Patent: U.S. 8,761,739 B1 (claims 1–18; claim 1 is the sole independent claim)
• Filed / Petition date: 2022-05-09
• Status: Final Written Decision — Board determined the challenged claims unpatentable; proceeding terminated 2023-09-26 (docket aggregator entry; see caveat below). An IPR certificate (kind code K1) issued 2024-01-05, cancelling the claims as adjudicated.
• Judge panel: The panels for the four consolidated Smart Mobile IPRs (IPR2022-00979/-00980/-00981/-00982) were identified in the Board's 2023-07-07 Conduct of Proceedings order (37 C.F.R. § 42.5) as Jameson Lee, Kevin F. Turner, Hyun J. Jung, Nathan A. Engels, and Paul J. Korniczky, Administrative Patent Judges. I could not verify the exact three-judge signature block on the '980 FWD itself from a primary document — treat the panel composition as reported rather than confirmed.
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness only (no § 101/§ 112 grounds were instituted; Petitioner expressly reserved §§ 101 and 112 for district court). The exhibit list shows a deep secondary-reference stack, including Rautiola (U.S. 5,949,775), Regnier (U.S. 5,689,708), Sainton (U.S. 5,854,985), Wilson (U.S. 5,400,246), Salazar (U.S. 5,802,467), Crites, Grube, Gillig, Haartsen, Weiser, Koenck, Wang, Cheung, Kanerva, Benjamin, Taglione, Stein, Andrews and others. Per the Federal Circuit's later opinion in the companion appeal, the '980 record turned on claim 1 limitations [1.5] ("switching between one or more networks") and [1.9] ("dynamic conversion … from a first function to a second function"), plus claim 2 ("switch dynamically between local networks and public carrier networks"), with Sainton relied on for the "dynamic conversion" limitation and Rautiola for the network-switching limitation. Petitioner argued no terms required construction; Patent Owner proposed "dynamic" = "when and as needed, responsive to variable conditions and without the need for user intervention."
• Institution decision: Instituted 2022-12-05 on all challenged claims and all grounds. The panel rejected Patent Owner's § 42.104(b)(3) and litigation-inconsistency attacks on the Petition, and rejected the argument that Petitioner's parallel district-court indefiniteness position barred institution. Caveat: I could not confirm from a primary source whether the petition challenged all 18 claims or a subset; claim 1 and claim 2 were unquestionably at issue, and the FWD found "all challenged claims" unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision: All challenged claims held unpatentable as obvious (35 U.S.C. § 318(a)), on the grounds as instituted. The Federal Circuit, analyzing the preclusive effect of this FWD, described it as follows: "The Board decided the issue, finding that Apple had shown all challenged claims to be unpatentable" (Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC, No. 24-1352, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. 2026-01-21)). Claim-level granularity: claim 1 (independent) unpatentable; dependent claims fell with it, including claim 2. Note: the retrieved excerpts do not let me quote the FWD's verbatim claim-by-claim disposition table, and I will not reconstruct it.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The proceeding ran to a contested FWD after institution, Patent Owner Response (filed with the joint Cooklev declaration covering all four sibling IPRs), Petitioner Reply, Patent Owner Sur-reply, and a consolidated oral hearing. Termination on 2023-09-26 reflects entry of judgment, not settlement.
• Appeal: None. Smart Mobile did not appeal the '980 FWD; the appeal deadline expired. This is confirmed by the Federal Circuit: "[i]n those proceedings, the Board found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, and Smart Mobile did not appeal those decisions, thus the deadline to do so has now expired" (ipwatchdog.com, 2026-01-21, reporting No. 24-1352). The '980 FWD is therefore final and non-reviewable.
  • Downstream appellate effect of this FWD (not an appeal of it): The '980 FWD became the preclusive predicate in IPR2022-00981 (U.S. 8,472,936). On appeal in Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, No. 24-1352 (Fed. Cir. 2026-01-21) — panel of Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Chen, opinion by Judge Reyna, nonprecedential — the court reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded, holding that the Board was issue-precluded from finding claim 1 of the '936 patent patentable because it is substantially similar to claim 1 of the '739 patent that the '980 FWD held unpatentable. The court: "To conclude otherwise would allow a patentee to assert a claim substantiallyly similar to a claim previously found unpatentable by the PTAB." Samsung's parallel appeal (No. 24-1351) was voluntarily dismissed by joint motion on 2024-08-06.
• Separate expiry event (independent of the IPR): The '739 patent's legal-events record shows LAPS — "PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES", entry dated 2022-08-01, and FP — "Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee," effective date 2022-06-24. In other words, the patent lapsed roughly five months before the '980 FWD was entered, while the parallel W.D. Tex. litigation (6:21-cv-00603, 6:21-cv-00701) was pending.
• Defensive value: Claim 1 — the only independent claim — is dead, and it died twice over (unpatentability FWD + IPR certificate, on top of a fee lapse). Any demand letter, complaint, or infringement contention that rests on claims 1–18 of the '739 patent is unsupportable. The FWD is unreviewable (unappealed), so there is no residual appellate risk; a defendant can move to dismiss or for summary judgment on the '739 patent with the certificate and the 2024-01-05 IPRC in hand.

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '739 patent: all claims CANCELED. Untested: none surviving. IPR2022-00980 challenged and invalidated the asserted claim set, and the Board's § 318(a) FWD was never appealed. Under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b), the USPTO issued an inter partes review certificate on 2024-01-05 (Google Patents legal event "IPRC," kind code K1) giving effect to that cancellation. Because claim 1 of the '739 patent is the only independent claim — every other claim (2–18) is dependent — there is no surviving claim scope in this patent: the invalidation of claim 1 collaterally extinguishes the dependent claims as a practical matter, and the Board found "all challenged claims" unpatentable. Compounding this, the patent file shows the patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2022-06-24. Bottom line: no claim of U.S. 8,761,739 is presently enforceable.

Estoppel landscape. Two estoppel layers are relevant. First, § 315(e)(2) claim-level estoppel now runs against the '980 petitioners (Apple and both Samsung entities) and their privies in the W.D. Tex./N.D. Cal. litigations: they cannot re-assert in court any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-00980 on the claims adjudicated. That matters less here because the claims are cancelled outright — estoppel is a backstop to the cancellation, not the primary defense. Second, and more interesting for a new defendant who was not a '980 petitioner: issue preclusion now cuts in your favor. The Federal Circuit's 2026-01-21 decision in No. 24-1352 held that the '980 FWD's finding on claim 1 of the '739 patent precluded relitigation of a substantially similar claim in a different patent in the same family. A fortiori, a non-party defendant facing an assertion of the very same '739 claims can invoke the unappealed FWD (and the certificate) defensively. If you need fresh art for a family sibling that wasn't cancelled, note that the '980 grounds did not exhaust the art — the § 103 record here used Rautiola/Sainton/Regnier and a secondary stack, and petitioner expressly reserved §§ 101 and 112; unadjudicated § 112 indefiniteness arguments on the "dynamic" terms (the term Patent Owner itself had to construe as "when and as needed … without the need for user intervention") remain live on any sibling patent still in force.

Pattern signals. This is a coordinated, well-funded, multi-front invalidation campaign against the Rao family (priority 1996-12-16) by Apple and Samsung jointly as co-petitioners, represented by Haynes & Boone and Fish & Richardson, with Smart Mobile represented by Skiermont Derby and Graves & Shaw. The same petitioners filed a barrage of IPRs touching this family — at least IPR2022-00766, -00807, -00808, -00979, -00980, -00981, -00982, -01002, -01003, -01004, -01005, -01222, -01223, -01248, -01249 — and the '980 FWD was one of the successful ones (along with -00808 on the '501 patent), while -00981 (the '936 patent) initially failed at the Board and had to be rescued on appeal. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) was the real party in interest here — the Unified Patents links in the patent record are merely its PTAB/litigation data-portal citations, whereas the actual petitioners were Apple and Samsung. There is no evidence of settlement anywhere in the chain: the disputes were litigated to FWD and, for -00981, through to a merits Federal Circuit opinion. Note also the parallel W.D. Tex. campaign (Case Nos. 6:21-cv-00603 and 6:21-cv-00701, later transferred to N.D. Cal., 3:23-cv-04168) and IPR2022-00980's own record in the prompt's litigation block, referencing the Texas cases. Smart Mobile's appeals have not been broadly successful (No. 24-1289 ended in dismissal/affirmance; No. 24-1352 largely went against it on the preclusion issue).

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant on the '739 patent: treat it as a dead patent and say so early. Cite, verbatim, the certificate from the patent's own legal-events record — "INTER PARTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE … TRIAL NO. IPR2022-00980 … ISSUED JAN. 5, 2024" — together with the 2022-08-01 LAPS entry ("PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES") and the 2022-08-23 FP entry (lapse effective 2022-06-24). Independent of the IPR, the asserted rights terminated for fee non-payment before the FWD issued.
2. Pull the primary FWD PDF from PTAB E2E/Case Tracking before filing anything that quotes it, and confirm (a) the exact FWD issuance date, (b) the exact challenged-claim list, and (c) the panel's verbatim disposition table. My retrieval confirms the outcome ("all challenged claims unpatentable," claim 1 and claim 2 litigated) and the unappealed/final status, but I did not obtain the FWD PDF itself and am not reconstructing its claim-by-claim table. Docket reference: PTAB case IPR2022-00980; docket aggregator: Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, IPR2022-00980.
3. Appellate citation for preclusion: Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, No. 24-1352 (Fed. Cir. 2026-01-21) (nonprecedential) — cafc.uscourts.gov opinion PDF. Note carefully that this opinion is nonprecedential and its holding runs to the '936 patent; use it for its reasoning on the preclusive effect of the '980 FWD on '739 claim 1, not as binding authority.
4. If you are being asserted on a sibling patent in this family (e.g., '501, '936, '937, '168, '119, or the '653/'946/'075 group), the roadmap differs:
   • '501 and '937: invalidated-all-claims track (IPR2022-00808 and IPR2022-00982 respectively; the '982 FWD issued 2023-12-04, holding claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10, 13, and 16–18 of the '937 patent unpatentable). Verify the corresponding IPR certificates.
   • '936: the Board's initial refusal to invalidate was reversed and vacated on 2026-01-21 for issue preclusion, with remand — so its status is unsettled and remand-stage, not final.
   • '119 and '168: IPR2022-00979 and IPR2022-00807 — confirm institution and FWD outcomes before relying on them; I did not verify their dispositions here.
5. Do not rely on the "no PTAB activity" default. The ODP/structured block for this patent is demonstrably incomplete (it omits an IPR that produced a K1 IPR certificate). For any further work on this family, cross-check PTAB E2E, the patent's own legal-events record, and the Federal Circuit docket rather than the ODP feed alone.

Confidence and non-fabrication notes: High confidence on (i) existence of IPR2022-00980, (ii) petitioners Apple + Samsung entities, (iii) petition date 2022-05-09, (iv) institution 2022-12-05, (v) outcome = all challenged claims unpatentable, (vi) no patent-owner appeal, and (vii) IPR certificate issued 2024-01-05. Lower confidence, expressly flagged: the precise FWD issuance date (reported 2023-09-26), the exact challenged-claim list, and the exact '980 merits-panel signature block. In addition to IPR2022-00980, the family's sibling IPRs are numerous (list above), but only IPR2022-00980 is an AIA trial on U.S. 8,761,739.

I'll verify the assignment-chain details and litigation/NPE context against live sources before writing anything, since the fetched Google Patents page does not include correspondent-of-record names.

Now let me pin down the recorded-assignment correspondents and entity details that the fetched page doesn't expose.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 8,761,739 B1

Data-source caveat up front: The reel/frame numbers, recording dates and effective dates below are taken from the Google Patents legal‑events extract of US 8,761,739 (which mirrors the underlying USPTO assignment records). The extract does not include the correspondent of record. I was unable to open the Assignment Center records directly in this session, and I will not invent correspondents — that is flagged as a data gap in §NPE signal 3 rather than papered over.

Inventors

Unusual patterns worth flagging:

• All three inventors assigned to the same entity they control — IP Holdings, Inc. — rather than to an employer. There is no evidence of a corporate R&D employer anywhere in the chain.
• The inventor→company assignment was executed (effective) 2008‑02‑22 but not recorded until 2014‑02‑03 (reel 032124/0400), i.e. ~11 years after the 1996 priority filing and ~4.5 months before the ‘739 patent granted. Title was papered up only as the continuation was about to issue.
• Forum-relocation tell: in Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Samsung, Samsung argued (and the court recorded) that Sunil K. Rao and Sanjay K. Rao moved to Austin, Texas shortly before suit — “Sanjay K. Rao signed a lease in Austin less than two months before this case was filed” — and Samsung called their Texas presence a “construct for litigation.” Both are Smart Mobile members, not arm’s-length witnesses.
• The ‘739 prosecution file (IPR2022‑00980 Ex. 1002) shows a Palo Alto, CA residence address (3087 Alexis Drive, 94304), consistent with the inventors’ pre‑litigation domicile.

Original assignee

IP Holdings, Inc. (California) — named as original assignee, having taken title from the inventors by reel 032124/0400 (recorded 2014‑02‑03, effective 2008‑02‑22).

• Product? No evidence of any shipped product embodying the claims. IP Holdings appears solely as a Rao‑family IP holding vehicle.
• Primary line of business: patent holding / licensing.
• Current status: Not determinable with confidence from the sources reviewed. Rights were conveyed onward on 2015‑07‑28 (reel 036193/0980) and again on 2020‑09‑26 (reel 053894/0686, “IP Holdings, a California corporation”). It still appears as assignee on sibling family member US 2014/0169270.
• Current assignee of record: Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (per Google Patents and reel 054351/0415).

Assignment timeline

Correspondent field appears below for completeness, but is reported as not retrieved on every entry — see §NPE signal 3. This is a real gap, not an omission on my part: Google Patents’ legal‑events extract omits correspondent names, and the Assignment Center records were not reachable in this session.

• 2008‑02‑22 (executed) / recorded 2014‑02‑03 — Reel 032124/0400

  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
  • Assignor: Rao, Raman K.; Rao, Sunil K.; Rao, Sanjay K.
  • Assignee: IP Holdings, Inc., California
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (data gap)
  • Context: Papering of title by the inventors into their own holding company, recorded ~4.5 months before grant and ~11 years after the 1996 priority filing.

• 2015‑07‑24 (executed) / recorded 2015‑07‑28 — Reel 036193/0980

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: IP Holdings, Inc.
  • Assignee: Smart Mobile, Inc., California
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (data gap)
  • Context: Internal reorganisation into the next family holding vehicle (“Smart Mobile, Inc.”); ~6 months after the ‘739 issued.

• 2020‑09‑16 (executed) / recorded 2020‑09‑24 — Reel 053871/0717

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Rao, Sunil K. (Mr.)
  • Assignee: Smart Mobile, Inc., California
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (data gap)
  • Context: Residual individual inventor rights swept up into Smart Mobile, Inc.

• 2020‑09‑16 (executed) / recorded 2020‑09‑24 — Reel 053876/0356

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Rao, Sanjay K. (Mr.)
  • Assignee: Smart Mobile, Inc., California
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (data gap)
  • Context: Same title‑cleanup closing as above.

• 2020‑09‑24 (executed) / recorded 2020‑09‑24 — Reel 053877/0295

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Rao, Rekha K. (Mrs.)
  • Assignee: Smart Mobile, Inc., California
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (data gap)
  • Context: Same title‑cleanup closing; note a non‑inventor family assignor, consistent with inheritance or intra‑family transfer.

• 2020‑09‑26 (executed) / recorded 2020‑09‑26 — Reel 053894/0686

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: IP Holdings, a California corporation
  • Assignee: Smart Mobile, Inc., California
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (data gap)
  • Context: Old California corporation finally conveys anything remaining; completes consolidation of the chain into Smart Mobile, Inc.

• 2020‑11‑12 (executed) / recorded 2020‑11‑12 — Reel 054351/0415

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Smart Mobile, Inc.
  • Assignee: Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Texas
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (data gap)
  • Context: Transfer to asserter. The Texas LLC that sued Apple and Samsung ~7 months later takes the whole chain in a single conveyance.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8761739
    1996 : Priority application filed
    2008 : Inventors execute assignment to IP Holdings
    2013 : Continuation application filed
    2014 : Assignment recorded reel 032124
         : Patent issues as US 8761739
    2015 : Assigned to Smart Mobile Inc reel 036193
    2020 : Rao family sweeps into Smart Mobile Inc
         : Assigned to Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
    2021 : Suits filed against Apple and Samsung
    2022 : Patent lapses for unpaid maintenance fee
    2023 : PTAB final written decision against claims
    2024 : IPR certificate issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (with a precision note).
Reel 054351/0415 (executed and recorded 2020‑11‑12) moves the patent from Smart Mobile, Inc. to Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Texas — a licensing/assertion vehicle with no evident product line. PTAB mandatory notices in IPR2022‑00979/00980 list only the LLC itself as real party‑in‑interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)), the classic single‑purpose posture. Note the qualification: the transferor (Smart Mobile, Inc.) was itself a Rao‑family holding company, not an operating company, and the LLC is member‑managed by the inventors (Sunil K. Rao signed the POA), so this is an inventor‑run assertion vehicle rather than an anonymous third‑party shell. The “no products, litigation‑only” element is satisfied; the “moved from an operating business” element is not.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (not on the enumerated list).
Smart Mobile Technologies LLC does not match Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp or Spangenberg. It is, however, independently a high‑intensity serial plaintiff: simultaneous mid‑2021 campaigns against Apple (6:21‑cv‑00603, filed 2021‑06‑11) and Samsung (6:21‑cv‑00701, filed 2021‑07‑01/02), each asserting 12–13 patents, drawing 8+ IPR petitions and a Unified Patents PTAB tracker entry. Multiple third‑party litigation databases describe it flatly as a PAE. Treat as present on the “high‑frequency plaintiff surfaced by Unified/RPX‑style tracking” prong.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / unverifiable (data gap).
This is the one signal I could not run. The Google Patents legal‑events extract supplies reel/frame, assignor, assignee and dates but not the correspondent of record, and the Assignment Center records were not retrievable in this session. What is visible circumstantially: the four 2020 recordings cluster into a single 10‑day window (reels 053871/0717, 053876/0356, 053877/0295, 053894/0686, all executed 2020‑09‑16 to 2020‑09‑26) with sequential reel numbers, which is the fingerprint of one firm closing a title‑cleanup in one sitting — and the final link (054351/0415) follows seven weeks later. That is suggestive of a single repeat recording agent, but it is not a correspondent identification and I am not calling it one.
Do not confuse litigation counsel with assignment correspondents: PTAB/docket records name Skiermont Derby LLP (Rex Hwang, Reg. 56,206; Todd Martin, Reg. 78,642), Graves & Shaw LLP (Philip J. Graves, Greer N. Shaw) and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Smart Mobile’s litigation/PTAB counsel. Those are different roles from the §1.21/3.71 recording correspondent and establish nothing about the assignment chain.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT.
Seven recorded links (one family recording per year band: 2014, 2015, then four in Sept 2020 and one in Nov 2020) move the patent through three successively named vehicles — IP Holdings, Inc. → Smart Mobile, Inc. → Smart Mobile Technologies LLC — with the decisive re‑titling completed inside a 10‑day window and the final hop seven weeks later, all within the ~24‑month run‑up to the June/July 2021 complaints. Same principals (Rao family) throughout, consistent with a designed assertion chain rather than market transfers.

5. Pre‑litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (borderline).
The final transfer to the asserting entity (reel 054351/0415, 2020‑11‑12) precedes the first complaint naming this patent (Apple, 2021‑06‑11) by ~7 months, and the Samsung complaint by ~7.5 months. That is just outside the 6‑month criterion, so the stated test fails. The arrangement is nonetheless plainly litigation‑oriented — it simply misses the tight window.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11, no trustee sale, no §363 auction anywhere in the chain. All transfers are intra‑family conveyances.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. There is no operating company on the transferor side; IP Holdings and Smart Mobile were holding vehicles throughout, so nothing was “privateered” from a product business to an NPE against that business’s competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, an active plaintiff — not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN. (Unified Patents appears only as the data licensor for the PTAB tracker link on the Google Patents page; it was not the IPR petitioner. The actual IPR2022‑00980 petitioners were Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.) Note that the patent was effectively neutralised anyway, but by adverse PTAB action and fee lapse, not by defensive aggregation: the Board’s Final Written Decision issued 2023‑09‑26, an inter partes review certificate issued 2024‑01‑05, and the patent had already lapsed for failure to pay the maintenance fee, effective 2022‑06‑24.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence (2+ strong signals).

The chain shows a purpose‑built assertion vehicle taking title in reel 054351/0415 (2020‑11‑12), executing the only product‑free, licensing‑only link in a three‑entity sequence — IP Holdings, Inc. → Smart Mobile, Inc. → Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Texas — just ahead of two parallel 2021 campaigns asserting 12–13 patents against Apple (6:21‑cv‑00603) and Samsung (6:21‑cv‑00701), which in turn drew 8+ IPRs, a Final Written Decision on 2023‑09‑26, an IPR certificate on 2024‑01‑05, and a maintenance‑fee lapse effective 2022‑06‑24. That is (a) transfer to a litigation‑only entity and (b) a recognised high‑volume asserter, reinforced by (c) cascading 2020 transfers through successively named family vehicles within 24 months of suit — three signals, two of them strong. The one materially unanswered question is signal 3 (correspondent recurrence), which the retrieved records simply do not expose; obtaining it from the Assignment Center is the single highest‑value next step.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search Patent Number 8761739), mirrored at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Source for the reel/frame and legal‑event dates: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8761739/en. Litigation/PTAB records: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00980 and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A21-cv-00701.

I'll research US patent 8761739 and its cited prior art. Let me run several searches.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 8,761,739 B1

1. Target patent (confirmed as the specific number, no auto-correction)

Because the effective priority date is 1996‑12‑16, the governing statute is pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)/(b)/(e). That date is decisive for the analysis below.

Independent claim 1 requires, in substance: (i) a wireless device supporting voice and data; (ii) a server; (iii) a memory + processor in the device; (iv) memory storing functional instructions for a plurality of functions, at least one for switching between networks including a public/wireless carrier network; (v) user-specific information stored on the server; (vi) memory storing communication protocols between server and device; and (vii) the server acting as a primary repository/exchange enabling dynamic conversion from a first function to a second function.

2. The cited references, sorted into two groups

Group A — True third‑party prior art (the only § 102 candidates)

These four are the substantive prior-art citations on the face of the '739 patent.

A1. US 5,517,553 A — Canon Kabushiki Kaisha ("Wireless communication system")

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,517,553, H. Sato, "Wireless communication system," Canon K.K.; app. 08/020,991 filed 1993‑04‑05, granted 1996‑05‑14 (priority 1988‑02‑29, JP).
• Description: A mobile terminal containing two radio units — a cordless-telephone transceiver (short range) and a portable-radiophone/cellular transceiver (long range). A control unit (microprocessor + ROM 8a/RAM 8b) automatically senses the communication-range status and selects the optimum wireless method/protocol, preferring the cheaper cordless link when a base unit is available and falling back to the cellular link otherwise.
• § 102 relevance: Pre‐1996 (§ 102(a)/(b)). This is the closest single reference to the network-switching core of claim 1 and to dependent claims 2 (dynamic switching local ↔ public carrier), 14 (serves as regular telephone handset), and 18 (GSM vs. WLAN home/office). Caveat: on the face of the reference it does not disclose the "server as primary repository/exchange," server-stored user-specific information, or dynamic function conversion downloaded from a network server, so it does not fully anticipate claim 1 or any claim depending from it. It is best characterized as anticipatory/obviousness art against the switching limitations, not a complete § 102 reference for claim 1.

A2. US 5,513,242 A — AT&T Corp. ("Method and apparatus for facilitating the ultimate making of wireless data transfers")

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,513,242, AT&T Corp.; filed 1994‑05‑31, granted 1996‑04‑30. (Companion EP 0700225, "Wireless channel setup using low bandwidth network…".)
• Description: A store-and-forward server complex (control processor 123, memory 133, code 135) that holds data for a mobile station and delivers it upon registration; the mobile unit (201) has a processor 209, memory 211, modem, voice/data switch 215, and a GPS locator 217.
• § 102 relevance: Pre‐1996 (§ 102(a)/(b)). Maps to the "server," "memory/processor," "voice and data," "locator" and stored-data limitations of claim 1, and to claims 12 (tunable operation parameters) and the location-based concepts in the specification. Caveat: it does not teach functional-instruction sets for switching among public/local/mobile networks, nor dynamic first-function→second-function conversion at the device, so it is not a standalone anticipation of claim 1 — it is combination (§ 103) material.

A3. US 5,907,580 A — Morphics Technology, Inc. ("Method and apparatus for communicating information")

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,907,580, M. R. Cummings, Morphics Technology, Inc.; app. 08/662,641, filed 1996‑06‑10 (priority 1996‑06‑09), granted 1999‑05‑25 (later Intel). Family sibling US 6,546,261 ("Method and apparatus for configuring communication apparatus in accordance with communication services and protocols").
• Description: A configurable/reconfigurable communication apparatus in which configurable circuitry is changed — manually or remotely via received signals — so that the device becomes able to receive/transmit information in forms/protocols it previously could not; supports a plurality of protocols and services (audio/tone/data).
• § 102 relevance: Because it was filed 1996‑06‑10, i.e., before the 1996‑12‑16 priority date but published after it, it is available only as § 102(e) art (and as § 103 art). It is the best citation for the reconfiguration-by-download concept: claim 1's "functional instructions," "plurality of communication protocols," and "dynamic conversion from a first function to a second function," as well as claims 13 (streamed content) and 17 (intelligent-device control, IP telephony, video, TV, audio, e-mail functions). Caveat: the reference is device-side and does not disclose a central server serving as the "primary repository/exchange" with server-stored user-specific information.

A4. US 5,034,858 A — Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. ("Electronic information equipment")

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 5,034,858, Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.; app. 07/513,423 filed 1990‑04‑20 (priority JP 1989‑04‑24), granted 1991‑07‑23.
• Description: A portable/hand-held computing device — a main body with a detachable keyboard and a display rotatably/tiltably mounted so the main unit need not sit directly in front of the user.
• § 102 relevance: Pre‐1996 (§ 102(a)/(b)). This is essentially mechanical/structural art. It appears to have been cited for the "hand-held computing device" recitation in the claim 1/specification description of the wireless device, and possibly for the separable-keyboard disclosure in the related Rao "Intelligent keyboard" line. It does not anticipate any of claims 1–18 on its subject matter; relevance is to the "hand-held device" genus only.

Group B — Common-priority family members (not § 102 prior art)

These were also listed among the "Patent Citations (10)" on the '739 face, but each claims the same 1996‑12‑16 priority date and therefore cannot be § 102 prior art against US 8,761,739. They are relevant only as the applicant's own earlier disclosure / written-description support (and, in the reverse direction, are the applications the '739 patent is a continuation of).

Important: several of these (B2–B6) are the same disclosure as the '739 patent and correspond one-for-one to claim limitations (FIS 218 on "Server C," cordless-phone emulation, macro commands for appliances, etc.). They are the source of the claims, not anticipatory art. Only if their priority claim to 08/764,903 were broken could US 7,929,950 (2011) or US 8,472,927 (2013) be reached as art — and even then they share the same inventors/assignee.

3. Bottom line on § 102 anticipation

• No single cited reference anticipates claim 1. Each third-party reference (A1–A4) is missing at least one claim-1 element — principally the "server as primary repository/exchange," server-stored user-specific information, and server-driven dynamic function conversion. The two references closest to the core are US 5,517,553 (automatic local↔cellular network switching) and US 5,907,580 (§ 102(e); remotely reconfigurable multi-protocol device).
• Most probable § 102/§ 103-against-dependent-claims mapping:
  • Claim 2 (dynamic switching local ↔ public carrier networks) → US 5,517,553 (and, for network selection, US 5,907,580).
  • Claim 14 (serves as regular telephone handset) → US 5,517,553.
  • Claim 18 (GSM + WLAN home/office) → US 5,517,553 (cellular + cordless dual-mode).
  • Claim 1's reconfiguration limitations; claims 13, 17 → US 5,907,580 (remote reconfiguration, plurality of protocols/services/functions).
  • Claims 1, 12 (server, memory/processor, voice+data, tunable parameters, location) → US 5,513,242.
  • Claim 1's "hand-held computing device" → US 5,034,858.
• The practical anticipation/obviousness attack on the '739 patent therefore runs through A1 + A2 + A3 in combination (network switching + server/memory + remote reconfiguration), not through any one reference alone.

4. Caveats and confidence

1. I confirmed the number and bibliographic data directly; I did not auto-correct any identifier (e.g., the page's annotation "Trial NO: IPR2022-00980… INTER PARTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE" and the "Priority claimed from US09/281,739"/"filed by IP Holdings Inc" entries are reproduced literally).
2. The § 102 claim mappings above are based on the reference abstracts/specification excerpts surfaced in the cited pages (Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, Unified Patents portals) and on the '739 claim set. A definitive, element‑by‑element § 102 chart would require reading the full text/figures of each reference; where a reference is described above as "potentially" anticipatory, that reflects a missing limitation, not merely caution.
3. I do not know with high confidence the substantive outcome of IPR2022‑00980 (Apple Inc. / Samsung v. Smart Mobile Technologies). The record shows an IPR was instituted/filed and that an IPR certificate issued 2024‑01‑05, but I have not verified whether claims were cancelled, confirmed, or amended, and I will not guess.
4. The "Family Cites Families" list on the '739 page (e.g., US 5,761,621 omni‑modal radio; US 5,675,629 cordless cellular base station; US 5,802,467 wireless/wired command‑control sensing; US 5,604,989; US 5,539,391 Gemstar appliance remote; US 6,628,964 combination cordless telephone/remote control; US 6,418,324 Padcom; US 6,035,212 multi‑frequency wireless device) contains further third‑party art that is more on‑point than US 5,034,858 for the appliance‑control and multi‑frequency/multi‑mode claims (e.g., claims 4–11, 17). Those were cited by family members rather than on the '739 face; if a broader § 102/§ 103 landscape is wanted, they should be reviewed next.

Key sources: US8761739B1 full text and citation tables (Google Patents); Justia patent page for 8761739; USPTO PTAB exhibit records IPR2022‑00980/00981; Google Patents US5513242A, US5517553A, US5034858A; Unified Patents US‑5907580‑A record; FreePatentsOnline US6546261 (Morphics family).

I'll ground this analysis in the actual reference set and litigation record before building the § 103 combinations.

Let me pin down the IPR outcome and the content of the key references the Board actually relied on.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,761,739 B1

"Dynamically configurable IP based wireless devices and networks"
Inventors: Sunil K. Rao, Sanjay K. Rao, Raman K. Rao · Assignee (current): Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
Priority: 1996‑12‑16 (via Ser. No. 08/764,903) · Filed: 2013‑05‑13 · Granted: 2014‑06‑24 · Status: Expired – Fee Related (lapsed 2022‑06‑24)

0. Bottom line up front

The § 103 question for this patent is not open in the way the prompt implies. In IPR2022‑00980 (Apple/Samsung v. Smart Mobile Technologies), the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on 2023‑09‑26 finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, Smart Mobile did not appeal, and an IPR certificate (K1) issued 2024‑01‑05. The Federal Circuit confirmed the preclusive effect of that decision in its 2026‑01‑21 opinion in the related IPR2022‑00981 appeal.

So this memo does two things:

1. It builds § 103 combinations strictly from the references listed in the Prior Art / Patent Citations sections of the US8761739 Google Patents page, as instructed.
2. It compares those combinations against what the Board actually relied on, and flags the significant gap between the two — a gap that is itself the most interesting finding here.

Critical caveat on the instruction: the page's citation list does not contain most of the art that invalidated the patent. I say this explicitly rather than papering over it. Details in § 3.

1. Governing framework

• Pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) applies. The earliest asserted priority is 1996‑12‑16, so the critical date for prior-art status is December 16, 1996 (with § 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(g) categories each running on its own clock).
• Graham v. John Deere: scope/content of prior art, differences, PHOSITA level, objective indicia.
• KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007): combinations are obvious where there is a known technique improving a similar device, a finite number of predictable solutions, or a design incentive — and the motivation need not be found in the references themselves.
• PHOSITA (as both parties and the Board effectively accepted): a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or equivalent, plus roughly two years' experience in wireless networking and wireless devices. (Petitioner's expert Dr. Kotzin framed it this way in Ex. 1003, and the patent owner did not materially contest the level.)

Claim 1 element map (as the Board itself numbered it)

Elements 1.1–1.8 are largely generic systems language. The whole case lives and dies on 1.9, and the sole dispute was the construction of "dynamic" — patent owner urged "when and as needed, responsive to variable conditions and without the need for user intervention."

2. What is actually in the page's "Prior Art" section

The page's algorithmically derived prior-art keywords are wireless device / server / wireless / functions / local — which is a fair paraphrase of elements 1.2–1.4. That is not evidence of anything legal, but it is a useful signal that claim 1's vocabulary is field-generic.

2a. "Patent Citations (10)" — the examiner/original-prosecution record

Observations:

• Only four references in the entire "Patent Citations (10)" list are third-party art. Six are Rao-family members sharing the same 1996‑12‑16 priority chain and common ownership.
• Those six are, for § 103 purposes, effectively disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA § 103(c) (commonly owned § 102(e)/(f)/(g) subject matter). Citing them against the '739 is circular.
• That leaves the examiner with Canon, Sanyo, AT&T and Morphics — four references, only one of which (AT&T US5513242) plausibly touches element 1.6 ("user specific information … stored on the server"), and only one of which (Morphics US5907580, a software-defined-radio-era assignee) plausibly touches elements 1.5/1.7 (reconfigurable communication protocols).

I have not retrieved the full text of these four references; the characterizations above are drawn from the titles, dates and assignee identities as displayed on the page, and are flagged as inference.

2b. "Family Cites Families (47)" — the family's own citation pool

This is where the page becomes genuinely useful. Third-party entries in that list that are pre‑1996‑12‑16 and directly on point include:

Excluded by date (do not use — filed after 1996‑12‑16): US6542497 (1997‑03‑11, Verizon), US6628964 (2000, IBM), US6937972 (1999‑03‑17, Philips), US6363249 (2000), US6163704 is 1996‑11‑15 and is usable. Note carefully: the page displays green "family cites" without filing dates in some rows; date-checking each one before relying on it is essential and I have done that above where the page supplies the date.

3. The gap between the page's prior art and the art that invalidated the patent

This is worth stating plainly, because it changes how much weight the analysis in § 4 can carry.

The Board's grounds in IPR2022‑00980 rested on:

• Ground 1 — claims 1–3, 16–18 obvious over US5949775 (Rautiola) + US5689708 (Regnier) + US5854985 (Sainton)
• Ground 2 — claims 5–6 over Rautiola + Regnier + Sainton + US5400246 (Wilson)
• Ground 3 — claim 10 over Rautiola + Regnier + Sainton + US5802467 (Salazar)
• Ground 4 — claim 13 over Rautiola + Regnier + Sainton + US6097380 (Crites)
• Ground 5 — claims 1–2, 5–6, 10, 17 over US5201067 (Grube) + US4989230 (Gillig) + US5740231 (Cohn)

Of these nine references, only US5802467 (Salazar) appears anywhere in the page's prior-art listing — under "Family Cites Families," not under "Patent Citations." Rautiola, Regnier, Sainton, Wilson, Crites, Grube, Gillig and Cohn are absent from the page entirely, as is the Spectrum sibling US5854985 (though its 1996 sibling US5761621 is listed, which is a near-substitute).

The practical lesson: an obviousness opinion built only from this page's citation list would understate the invalidating art, not overstate it. The combinations in § 4 should therefore be read as a floor, not a ceiling.

4. § 103 combinations built from the page's own prior-art list

Combination A — "Reconfigurable multi-mode radio + server-side software repository"

US5761621 (Spectrum) in view of US5848064 (Telxon), optionally with US6035212 (LSI) and US5410738 (NCR)

Element mapping:

Motivation to combine — why a PHOSITA would have done this:

1. Same field of endeavor, same problem. Both are wireless-mobile-terminal systems with a fixed host/base-station infrastructure. This satisfies the analogous-art threshold (In re Bigio; In re Clay) and the "same field of endeavor" framing the Board later accepted.
2. Express teach-to-combine inside the primary reference. US5761621 states the protocol library "may be replaced, or supplemented, by information transmitted over the radio frequencies to the device by the carrier, or information downloaded from a hardwired connection to another device," and that flash/EEPROM/NVRAM "permit[s] replacement or updating of the operating instructions used by the device." That is a literal invitation to look to a remote repository.
3. The secondary reference solves a problem the primary reference creates. US5848064's stated problem is precisely that "the software which is preloaded into a mobile device becomes outdated prior to the time the mobile hardware device becomes obsolete," and that periodic blind re-downloads waste time because "there is no way to determine if software has been changed." A device carrying a large multi-protocol library (US5761621) has more software to keep current — so the Telxon version-control-and-repository solution is the natural, predictable design choice.
4. KSR rationales (a), (c) and (d) apply squarely: combining known elements by known methods for predictable results; applying a known technique (over-the-air software distribution) to a known device ready for improvement (a protocol-agile radio) to yield predictable results.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. Both operate on the same air interface class (cellular/RF data links), same era, same hardware (mobile terminal + memory + transceiver).

Combination B — "Wireless LAN / public carrier switching"

US5410738 (NCR) + US5675629 (AT&T) + US6035212 (LSI), as an alternative to US5761621

This is the fallback if the Spectrum reference is attacked (e.g., § 102(e) date disputes, or a "non-analogous art" argument aimed at Spectrum's paging/billing focus).

• US5410738 teaches linking wireless LANs — the office/local ↔ wider-network boundary that element 1.5 requires, and the "local network switchbox … adapted to perform the functions of a wireless local area network box" of claim 3.
• US5675629 teaches a combined cordless/cellular base station — the two-network split of claims 1, 2 and 18 (GSM + WLAN for home or office).
• US6035212 supplies the self-adapting, user-transparent multi-frequency/multi-protocol transceiver of claim 1's "switching" element and claim 12's tunable power/bandwidth/frequency.

Motivation: each reference attacks the same recognized industry problem — the fragmentation of wireless service into incompatible public and private domains. US6035212 states this explicitly as its object ("avoid one or more of these limitations"; "self-adaptable to at least two differing frequency bandwidth standards … in the locations to which the equipment is transported"). A PHOSITA seeking a single handset usable in the office, the home and the public carrier would combine these as a finite set of identified, predictable solutions — KSR rationale (e).

Combination C — "Appliance and equipment control" (dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12)

US5802467 (Salazar/Innovative Intelcom) + US5539391 (Gemstar) + US6049289 (Overhead Door) + US5379341 (Odessa) + US5565929 (Sony)

Motivation: by the mid‑1990s the convergence of the cordless/wireless handset with the universal remote was a well-recognized design direction, and both problems the '739 patent identifies in its Background ("a user may need a device or remote for the public airwaves … another for the local or office network and yet another for the home network … as well as controllers for TVs and other intelligent appliances") were the express problems these references set out to solve. Combining a reconfigurable wireless handset with known appliance-remote control is precisely the "known technique to improve a similar device in the same way" rationale — KSR (c).

Weak point: claim 13 ("content streamed thereto from a server on the Internet"). The page's own prior-art list has no clean teaching of Internet content streaming to a wireless device. US5761621 comes closest (FM subcarrier information services, satellite networks, paging) but is pre-Internet-streaming in character. This is exactly the limitation for which the Board needed a fourth reference — Crites (US6097380) — in Ground 4. I did not independently verify Crites' effective filing date; if it post-dates 1996‑12‑16, that ground would have had a § 102 date problem, and its institution suggests it does not.

Combination D — "Server-side profiles / user-specific information" (element 1.6)

US5513242 (AT&T) alone, or in Combination A

US5513242 ("Method and apparatus for facilitating the ultimate making of wireless data transfers") is the one examiner-cited reference that plausibly reaches element 1.6, since its subject matter is the storage of subscriber/account information on the network side to make a wireless data transfer complete. Read with US5848064's per-terminal version/profile records, element 1.6 is squarely met.

5. Where the patent owner's rebuttal actually landed — and failed

The patent owner's non-obviousness case rested almost entirely on limitation 1.9, and specifically on the argument that "dynamic conversion" requires conversion without user intervention. Its expert (Dr. Cooklev, Ex. 2031) argued:

• Regnier/Wilson/Crites/Salazar were not analogous art under In re Clay / In re Bigio;
• Grube and Gillig were not analogous art;
• The alleged conversions in Rautiola+Regnier, and in Grube+Gillig, require user intervention — Gillig's transfer from cordless to cellular requires the user to "enter a predetermined code on keypad";
• Therefore the server does not "enable dynamic conversion."

That argument lost. The Board had preliminarily construed "dynamic conversion" as "conversion when and as needed and in real time" — without the "no user intervention" gloss the patent owner sought — and the Final Written Decision found the challenged claims unpatentable. Smart Mobile did not appeal.

Objective indicia: none were established with a nexus. The patent owner did not put forward unexpected results, long-felt need, failure of others, or industry praise tied to the claimed subject matter.

§ 112 / indefiniteness cross-current worth noting: the petitioner argued in the parallel district court case that "dynamic" was indefinite, while in the IPR it argued plain-and-ordinary meaning. The Board declined to treat that inconsistency as fatal to institution (distinguishing OrthoPediatrics). Practically, the patent's most load-bearing term was contested on two inconsistent theories simultaneously.

6. Claim-by-claim disposition

Claims 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 were never challenged. They survive the IPR certificate only because no one asked the Board about them — not because they were examined on the merits. On the page-listed art, most look obvious, but claim 13 is the one place where the page's prior-art list is genuinely thinner than the IPR record.

7. Explicit uncertainties and limitations of this analysis

1. I have not read the full text of the four examiner-cited third-party references (US5517553, US5034858, US5513242, US5907580). Their relevance here is inferred from title, assignee, date and the examiner's citation. Treat Combination D's element‑1.6 mapping as provisional.
2. I did not retrieve the full text of Rautiola, Regnier, Grube, Gillig or Cohn. Their characterizations come from the patent owner's Response (Paper 21) and Petitioner's expert declaration (Ex. 1003) as quoted in the docket materials, which is second-hand but from the operative record.
3. Crites' (US6097380) effective filing date is unverified, and it matters for claim 13.
4. The six Rao-family references in "Patent Citations (10)" should not be used against the '739 absent a § 103(c) common-ownership analysis.
5. The K1 IPR certificate itself does not, on the face of the Google Patents page, enumerate which claims were cancelled — the page shows only that a certificate issued 2024‑01‑05. The "all challenged claims unpatentable, no appeal" characterization comes from the Federal Circuit reporting (IPWatchdog, 2026‑01‑21) on the related IPR2022‑00981, which states: "In prior IPRs, specifically IPR2022‑00980 and IPR2022‑00808, Apple challenged the '739 and '501 patents. In those proceedings, the Board found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, and Smart Mobile did not appeal those decisions, thus the deadline to do so has now expired."
6. The patent has been unenforceable by reason of non-payment of maintenance fees since 2022‑06‑24 (37 C.F.R. § 1.362), independent of validity.

8. Sources

• US8761739B1 Google Patents page (authoritative text, claims, citations, family, legal events, litigation links) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US8761739/en
• IPR2022-00980 docket and exhibits (grounds, claim-listing, expert declarations) — https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00980/APPLE_INC._v._Smart_Mobile_Technologies_LLC/
• Patent Owner's Response, IPR2022-00980 Paper 21 — https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00980/APPLE_INC._v._Smart_Mobile_Technologies_LLC/03-29-2023-Patent_Owner/PO_Response_to_Pet-21-Patent_Owners_Response/
• Institution Decision, IPR2022-00980 Paper 14 (Dec. 5, 2022) — https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00980/APPLE_INC._v._Smart_Mobile_Technologies_LLC/12-05-2022-Board/Institution_Decision__Grant-14-Institution_Decision__DECISION_Granting_Institution_of_Inter_Partes_Review_35_USC_%C2%A7_314/
• Kotzin Declaration, IPR2022-00980 Ex. 1003 — https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00980/APPLE_INC._v._Smart_Mobile_Technologies_LLC/05-09-2022-Petitioner/Exhibit-1003-Ex1003___Kotzin_Declaration_739/
• IPWatchdog, "Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB on Issue Preclusion, Finds Smart Mobile Patent Claims Unpatentable" (Jan. 21, 2026) — https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/01/21/federal-circuit-reverses-ptab-issue-preclusion-finds-smart-mobile-patent-claims-unpatentable/
• US5761621A (Spectrum Information Technologies) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US5761621
• US5848064A (Telxon) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US5848064A
• US6035212A (LSI Logic) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6035212
• Smart Mobile v. Samsung, W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00701 (dismissed with prejudice July 15, 2024, claim construction order vacated) — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A21-cv-00701

One-line answer

Every challenged claim of US 8,761,739 — 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 18 — was held obvious under § 103 in IPR2022‑00980, the decision is final after non-appeal and certification, and even a § 103 case built solely from the references printed on the patent's own Google Patents page (principally Spectrum's US5761621 omni-modal radio + Telxon's US5848064 wireless software repository, supplemented by Salazar US5802467, Gemstar US5539391, Overhead Door US6049289 and LSI US6035212) reaches every element of claim 1, with claim 13 (Internet-streamed content) the only limitation that list does not cleanly anticipate.