US 9019946

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

Let me verify the CAFC docket and IPR status specifically.

Let me confirm the exact text of independent claim 1 and check the litigation status.

US Patent 9,019,946 — Analyst Summary

Caveat on method: I ran web searches (Google Patents, PTAB/Federal Circuit docket aggregators, IPWatchdog/VitalLaw coverage). I could not directly query the USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC PACER/docket system, so the litigation details below come from secondary sources and are flagged where uncertain.

1. Bibliographic data (literal)

Priority chain (per the patent's own CROSS REFERENCE section): 14/480,584 (Sep 8, 2014) ← 14/139,817 (Dec 23, 2013) ← 12/912,607 (Oct 26, 2010, now US 8,824,434) ← 10/940,428 (Sep 13, 2004, now US 7,848,300) ← 09/617,608 (Jul 17, 2000, now US 7,286,502) ← CIP of 09/281,739 (Jun 4, 1999, now US 6,169,789).

⚠️ Discrepancy I am not auto-correcting: Google Patents lists "Prior art date 1996-12-16" and an assumed "Priority date 1996-12-16," whereas the patent's own reference chain and the PTAB both state the earliest application was filed June 4, 1999. The "1996-12-16" entry appears to be a family/inherited date rather than the '946 application's own priority. I flag this rather than reconcile it.

⚠️ Date anomaly: Today's date given in this task is April 26, 2026, but my searches returned CAFC decisions dated August 27, 2026. I am reporting those results as found (per instructions to prefer search results) but flagging that they post-date the stated "today."

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A method and apparatus in which multiple Internet Protocol (IP) based wireless data transmissions are simultaneously provided between a wireless device and a server, including providing multiple antennas, multiple T/R units, multiple processors and multiple I/O ports on the wireless device. The method includes receiving multiple IP data packets on the I/O ports at substantially the same time, and sending multiple data packets from the wireless device to the server, whereby the transmission rate between the wireless device and the server is increased."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The '946 patent has four independent claims: 1, 14, 17, and 27 (per the PTAB institution decision in IPR2022-01249). All share a common theme: a mobile device with multiple antennas, multiple transmit/receive (T/R) units, multiple processors, and multiple I/O ports that can use several communication paths at once to increase throughput.

Claim 1 — An IP-enabled mobile communication device comprising a memory, at least two antennas, one or more processors, and a plurality of wireless transmit/receive units (a first and a second), each configured to communicate using one or more protocols. The device is configured for multi-band wireless communication and is enabled for communication on a local area network. The first T/R unit communicates using a plurality of antennas, and a "first interface for transmission" is created that uses a plurality of IP interfaces to yield a single interface comprised of multiplexed signals from the plurality of T/R units. Data transfer is improved by the simultaneous use of multiple communication paths, including at least one connection to a networked server, with at least one path carrying voice data and at least one path carrying non-voice data.

Claim 14 — An Internet-enabled mobile communication device comprising a memory, a display, at least two antennas, one or more processors, and a plurality of wireless T/R units (first and second). The device is enabled for IP communication and for wireless communication on a wireless LAN; the first T/R unit can communicate using one or more antennas simultaneously. The device maintains multiple IP addresses (first unit on a first IP address, second unit on a second IP address) and operates using a plurality of ports. Data transfer is improved by the simultaneous use of multiple network paths, including at least one connection to a networked server, with the device supporting both voice and non-voice wireless signals.

Claim 17 — A portable wireless communication device comprising a plurality of wireless T/R units (first and second), each configured to communicate using one or more protocols; the device is multi-band and IP-enabled. The first T/R unit communicates over IP with a remote system on a first network path, and the second T/R unit communicates with the same or a different remote system on a second network path; the on-device processor combines the data paths into a single transmission interface to one or more applications on the device. At least one network is a voice network and at least one is an IP data network.

Claim 27 — An IP-enabled communication device comprising a memory, one or more processors, and a plurality of wireless communication units, supporting multiple transmit/receive frequencies and multiple wireless protocols. A first unit is coupled to a first set of antennas on a first network; a second unit is coupled to a second set of antennas on a second network; at least one unit is configured for RF communication. The first unit operates at a lower frequency than the second, so the two act as complementary systems that reduce interference with each other. The device supports voice and/or data plus Internet connectivity, and the second unit communicates to a remote server on the second network path in response to a change in signal strength and/or connectivity of the first or second unit, with video or audio accessible simultaneously, performance optimized via dedicated or multiplexed paths.

4. Litigation / validity posture (important context for the claim summary)

• PTAB IPR2022-01249 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC; petitioners Samsung, Samsung Electronics America, and Apple). Filed July 6, 2022; instituted January 24, 2023; Final Written Decision January 23, 2024 holding claims 14, 15, 17–21, and 27–30 unpatentable, but not claims 1–13, 16, and 26. Grounds turned on the prior art references Yegoshin and Bernard, and the construction of "multiplexed signals" (Board adopted "combining multiple signal streams into one").
• Appeals: Apple appeal Nos. 2024-1607, 2024-1609, 2024-1675, 2024-1676; Samsung appeal Nos. 2024-1608, 2024-1610. Samsung's appeals (2024-1608, 2024-1610) were dismissed by CAFC order dated August 13, 2024.
• CAFC decisions (as reported, dated August 27, 2026): The court affirmed the PTAB's finding that Apple failed to prove claims 1–13, 16, and 26 (and the parallel '653 '946-family claims) unpatentable — the "multiplexed signals" construction holding. It vacated and remanded the Board's obviousness finding as to claim 17 and its dependents, on Administrative Procedure Act grounds (failure to address Smart Mobile's "bottlenecking" evidence). A related appeal is captioned No. 25-1090.
• District court: Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., 6:21-cv-00603, and v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 6:21-cv-00701 (W.D. Tex.), transferred to a California district (Google Patents lists N.D. Cal. case 3:23-cv-04168; one secondary source describes the transfer as to the Central District of California). The infringement case has been reported as stayed pending the IPRs.

Net effect on the claims: As of the most recent reported decisions, the independent claims 1 and 27's dependents remain the stronger ground for Smart Mobile (claims 1–13, 16, 26 survived), while claim 17's validity is again open on remand, and claims 14/15/17–21/27–30 had been invalidated at the Board level (subject to the remand). Given the conflicting/uncertain dates and secondary sourcing, the current legal status of individual claims should be confirmed against the live PTAB and CAFC dockets before being relied on.

Uncertainty notes: (1) The "1996-12-16" priority listing conflicts with the patent's internal chain (June 4, 1999) — treat with caution. (2) The CAFC August 2026 decisions post-date the "current date" given in this task; I report them as my searches returned them. (3) I quoted claim language largely from PTAB/demonstrative excerpts rather than an authoritative full claim set from the patent PDF; the claim 1 preamble wording in particular was only partially captured, so minor wording differences from the issued patent text are possible.

I'll research the litigation history for US patent 9019946. Let me start with the case numbers and jurisdictions already identified, then expand.

Let me gather details on the Apple case transfer, appeal outcomes, and any other cases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,019,946

Important scoping note: I interpret the number literally — everything below concerns U.S. Patent No. 9,019,946 ("Wireless and cellular voice and data transmission with multiple paths of communication," originally assigned to IP Holdings Inc., now held by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC), priority date 1996-12-16. Results for similar numbers (e.g., 9,019,043, 9,019,046) are excluded.

The '946 patent has been asserted as part of a larger portfolio (12–13 patents) in two parallel district-court campaigns (Apple and Samsung), and was the subject of a dedicated PTAB inter partes review and subsequent Federal Circuit appeals.

1. District Court Litigation

A. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc.

B. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Note: Some third-party litigation summaries refer to this Samsung matter as "Smart Mobile Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 6:21-cv-00701." I did not find a separate, distinct Samsung-only case number asserting the '946 patent.

2. PTAB — Inter Partes Review

IPR2022-01249, Petitioners: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Patent 9,019,946 B1.

This is the IPR directly on the '946 patent. (Related IPRs on sibling patents include IPR2022-01222 ('863), IPR2022-00979 ('119), IPR2022-00981 ('936), and IPR2022-00980/'808 (implicating the '739/'501 family), among others, but those are different patents.)

3. Federal Circuit Appeals

Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC — appeals from the PTAB final written decisions, filed ~March 2024. The Google Patents family record lists Federal Circuit case numbers 24-1609, 24-1610, and 24-1676; related/proximate dockets include 24-1607 and 24-1623. The appeal(s) concerning the '946 patent were decided together with the '653 patent.

A companion appeal concerning U.S. Pat. No. 9,319,075 was likewise affirmed (Apple's obviousness challenge rejected). Other Smart Mobile portfolio appeals produced different outcomes (e.g., a Jan. 21, 2026 decision reversing the PTAB on issue preclusion for the '936 patent, and a case remanding the '083 patent decision on APA/Axonics grounds) — but those relate to different patents, not the '946.

Additionally, Google Patents lists these Federal Circuit appeals among the '946 family litigation: 24-1676, 24-1610, 24-1609.

Summary Table of Known Matters Involving the '946 Patent

Caveats / Confidence

• High confidence on the two co-pending district cases, case numbers, filing dates, the IPR2022-01249 filing and FWD, and the Aug. 27, 2026 Federal Circuit outcome — all corroborated by multiple sources (CourtListener, Justia, Docket Alarm, Graves & Shaw, IPWatchdog/Law360).
• Medium confidence on exact Federal Circuit docket-number-to-patent mapping. Several appeal numbers (24-1607, 24-1609, 24-1610, 24-1623, 24-1676) exist in this family; I could not fully verify which single docket number corresponds solely to the '946 appeal.
• Uncertain whether any additional defendants (beyond Apple and Samsung) were ever sued on the '946 patent in other districts — my searches surfaced only these two campaigns. If you need absolute completeness against PACER/Unified Patents dockets, I'd recommend a direct query of the Unified Patents litigation portal and PACER for the specific patent number, since I could not exhaustively sweep every district.
• I found no ITC (Section 337) action involving the '946 patent.

If you'd like, I can next verify the precise alignment of each Federal Circuit docket number to its underlying patent, or pull the docket-entry-level history of the stayed N.D. Cal. case.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings for this patent. Note that the patent's own family/litigation data flags an IPR2022-01249 and several CAFC appeals, so I'll verify those rather than defaulting to "no activity."

Let me verify whether other IPRs target this specific patent, and pin down the CAFC appeal docket numbers.

Let me pin down the appeal docket mapping and get citable opinion links.

PTAB / AIA Trial Landscape — U.S. Patent No. 9,019,946 B1

Data-integrity flag (read first): The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That ODP result is incomplete. Public PTAB records, the patent's own Google Patents family/litigation data, and the Federal Circuit's docket all confirm a fully-litigated IPR (IPR2022-01249) with a Final Written Decision and a precedential-track appeal decided 2026-08-27. Treat the ODP "no activity" result as an ingest gap, not as evidence of a clean patent. The canonical proceeding set below is built from the PTAB FWD (Paper 53), the Errata (Paper 54), the Institution Decision (Paper 13), and the Federal Circuit opinion.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding directed at the '946 patent — IPR2022-01249 (Petitioner: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.), and Apple Inc.; Patent Owner: Smart Mobile Technologies LLC) — which was instituted in full, decided on the merits, and appealed; the outcome is split: claims 14, 15, 27–30 were held unpatentable and stand canceled, claims 1–13 and 16 survived Apple's challenge and were affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-08-27, and claims 17–21 and 26 were held unpatentable by the Board but that judgment was vacated and remanded on Smart Mobile's APA cross-appeal. Defensive posture: the patent is partially dead but its core independent claim 1 and claims 1–13/16 have been judicially reinforced — the Federal Circuit adopted Smart Mobile's narrow construction of "multiplexed signals" and affirmed that Yegoshin + Bernard does not disclose it, so a defendant's obviousness theory built on that combination is now substantially harder, while any demand letter citing claims 14, 15, or 27–30 is citing claims that no longer exist.

IPR2022-01249 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-07-06
• Status: Final Written Decision – Appealed (DocketAlarm status verbatim); PTAB FWD issued, Errata issued, appealed to the Federal Circuit and decided 2026-08-27 (affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part)
• Judge panel: Hyun J. Jung (Administrative Patent Judge, author), Garth D. Baer, and Aaron W. Moore (per the Institution Decision and the FWD caption). Note: third-party docket aggregators also list Monica Ullagaddi, Nathan Engels, and Paul Korniczky against this proceeding number; the three-judge panel that signed the institution and final decisions is Jung, Baer, and Moore.
• Petition grounds (all under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); no § 102 or § 112 grounds):
  • Ground 1A — claims 14, 15 over Yegoshin (U.S. 6,711,146) + Johnston (U.S. 5,784,032) + Billström (U.S. 5,590,133)
  • Ground 1B — claims 1–11 and 16–21 over Yegoshin + Johnston + Billström + Bernard (U.S. 5,497,339)
  • Ground 1C — claim 12 over Yegoshin + Johnston + Billström + Bernard + WO 98/27748 ("WO748")
  • Ground 1D — claims 13 and 26 over Yegoshin + Johnston + Billström + Bernard + Sainton (U.S. 5,854,985)
  • Ground 1E — claims 27–30 over Yegoshin + Johnston + Billström + Bernard + Preiss (U.S. 6,031,503)
  • Challenged claims: 1–21 and 26–30 (claims 22–25 were never challenged).
• Institution decision: Instituted on all challenged claims and all presented grounds, 2023-01-24 (Paper 13). Panel found "[u]pon consideration of the Petition … Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims," and instituted on the whole petition under SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). The Board also authorized supplemental briefing directed solely to alleged inconsistent claim constructions between the IPR and the co-pending district court case.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2024-01-23, Paper 53; corrected by Errata 2024-02-13, Paper 54): Verdict at claim level — the Board determined that Petitioner showed by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14, 15, 17–21, and 27–30 (as corrected by the Errata: claims 14, 15, 17–21, and 26–30) are unpatentable, and that claims 1–13 and 16 were not shown unpatentable. The Errata is important: it corrected the FWD's erroneous inclusion of claim 26 in the "not unpatentable" list; the corrected overall outcome is unpatentable = 14, 15, 17–21, 26–30 and not unpatentable = 1–13, 16. Claim-level reasoning highlights:
  • The dispositive issue for claims 1–13 was the meaning of "multiplexed signals." The Board implicitly adopted Smart Mobile's narrower reading ("combining multiple signal streams into one") and found that neither Yegoshin nor Bernard discloses multiplexed signals. On Bernard specifically, the Board emphasized that Bernard's second embodiment — unlike its first (Fig. 13) — "does not describe or show … a decoder/multiplexer," and that Apple "fail[ed] to identify the 'alternative interconnection' or explain how it could be incorporated into the combination."
  • For claim 17 (independent claim not containing the "multiplexed signals" limitation), the Board credited Apple's motivation-to-combine theory (implementing Bernard's cradle functionality into Yegoshin's phone to eliminate the need for a separate cradle) and held claim 17 and dependents obvious.
  • The Board granted Petitioner's Motion to Submit Supplemental Information (Apple's attempt to correct the Board's understanding of "multiplex").
  • Claims 27–30 fell on Ground 1E (with Preiss), with the Board finding Yegoshin renders obvious a "remote server" and communication on a second path "in response to a change in the signal strength and/or connectivity."
• Settlement / termination: None. The proceeding ran to a merits FWD following an oral hearing on 2023-10-24 (Paper 52). No adverse-judgment or settlement termination is on the record; the FWD itself did not terminate the proceeding.
• Appeal: Yes — and this is where the current posture is set.
  • Apple filed a Notice of Appeal on 2024-03-26 from the FWD (Paper 53) as corrected (Paper 54), stating the expected issues as "the Board's error(s) in determining that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that challenged claims 1–13 and 16 of the '946 patent are unpatentable."
  • Federal Circuit appeal Nos. 24-1607, 24-1609, 24-1675, 24-1676 (arising from IPR2022-01248 and IPR2022-01249) — with Smart Mobile's cross-appeals at 24-1675/24-1676. Samsung's own appeals (24-1608, 24-1610) were de-consolidated and dismissed by order of 2024-08-13 (each side to bear its own costs); Samsung was removed from the caption and did not participate as appellee. (The prompt's structured block also lists a CAFC 24-1676, consistent with the cross-appeal.)
  • Disposition (nonprecedential, 2026-08-27; panel: Circuit Judges Reyna, Hughes, and Stark, opinion authored by Judge Stark):
    • Apple's appeal — AFFIRMED. The court construed "multiplexed signals" to mean "combining multiple signal streams into one," rejecting Apple's broader reading that would encompass mere sequential sharing of a pathway ("switching"), and held substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that neither Yegoshin nor Bernard discloses multiplexed signals. It therefore affirmed the Board's judgment that Apple failed to prove claims 1–13 and 16 of the '946 unpatentable (and claims 1–13 and 27–30 of the '653 patent in the same opinion); the companion appeal (No. 25-1090) affirmed rejection of Apple's challenge to claims 1–3 and 5 of the '075 patent on the same construction ("multiplexing signals").
    • Smart Mobile's cross-appeal (APA) — VACATED AND REMANDED. The cross-appeal relates to claims 17–21 and 23–26 of the '653 and '946 patents. The court held the Board "appear[ed] to have overlooked Smart Mobile's motivation to combine arguments with respect to claim 1 – which Apple also relied on for claim 17," erroneously finding Smart Mobile made no such argument; "we cannot reasonably discern the Board's basis for siding with Apple. Thus, we vacate and remand the portion of the judgment at issue in the cross-appeal." (For the '946, the cross-appealed set is claims 17–21 and 26.)
    • Net claim-level effect on the '946: the Board's unpatentability holding as to claims 17–21 and 26 is undone for now (live on remand); the holding as to claims 14, 15, and 27–30 was not cross-appealed and stands; the Board's failure to invalidate claims 1–13 and 16 was affirmed.
  • Citation links: FWD/Errata — PTAB E2E, IPR2022-01249 and DocketAlarm docket for IPR2022-01249; CAFC opinion — Justia, Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC, No. 24-1607 (Fed. Cir. 2026-08-27) and GovInfo, No. 24-1675 (Fed. Cir. 2026-08-27); 2024 consolidation order — CourtListener, Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (24-1607, 2024-08-13).
• Defensive value: Claims 14, 15, and 27–30 are canceled — any infringement theory resting on them is dead on arrival, and a demand letter citing them signals the plaintiff is not tracking the record. But claims 1–13 and 16 were tested and survived all the way through a Federal Circuit affirmance, and the court's narrowing construction of "multiplexed signals" is now binding precedent (albeit nonprecedential) that will make a Yegoshin/Bernard-style obviousness case harder for the next defendant too. The '946 patent is expired (Google Patents shows anticipated expiration 2019-06-04; legal status "Expired – Fee Related"), so exposure is limited to pre-expiration past damages within the § 286 lookback.

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '946 patent. Of the 30 claims, the challenged set was 1–21 and 26–30. After the FWD, the Errata, and the 2026-08-27 Federal Circuit decision:

• CANCELED / held unpatentable and not disturbed: claims 14, 15, 27, 28, 29, 30 (these were in the FWD's unpatentability judgment and were not part of Smart Mobile's cross-appeal).
• Held unpatentable but VACATED and REMANDED (live on remand): claims 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26 (the '946 subset of the cross-appealed "claims 17–21 and 23–26").
• SUSTAINED (challenged, challenged again on appeal, and affirmed): claims 1–13 and 16 — including independent claim 1 and the "multiplexed signals" limitation the Federal Circuit construed narrowly. Claim 1 is the most commercially significant claim and it is now hardened by an affirmance.
• UNTESTED: claims 22–25, which were never challenged in the IPR (the petition targeted 1–21 and 26–30).

Because the patent is expired, the practical risk from the surviving claims is retrospective damages only.

Estoppel landscape. The petitioners of record are Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd./Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), each petitioner (and its real parties in interest and privies) is estopped in district court from asserting any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-01249 — i.e., the entire Yegoshin–Johnston–Billström–Bernard family of § 103 combinations, and the WO748/Sainton/Preiss variations, are off the table for Apple and Samsung in Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc. (which moved from W.D. Tex. to the Northern District of California and has been stayed) and in the Samsung action. That is a meaningful defensive asset for those two: after 2026-08-27, the IPR route to those references is closed, and the district-court obviousness case must run through different art. For a new, non-privy defendant, § 315(e)(2) does not bind it — the Yegoshin/Bernard combination and other art remain available — but the Federal Circuit's construction of "multiplexed signals" (combining streams into one composite) is now the law of this case family and will be cited against any petitioner relying on art that merely shares a pathway sequentially. A fresh IPR on claims 22–25 (never challenged) or on the surviving claims 1–13/16 using different art is legally available but must confront that construction.

Pattern signals. This is a single-petition-per-patent situation on the '946: it was Apple/Samsung jointly, not a serial filer. There is no defensive aggregator in the file — the "Unified Patents" references in the patent's Google Patents block are data attributions for the litigation/PTAB datasets, not a petitioner; the petitioner of record is Apple and Samsung. (Multiple related Smart Mobile patents were challenged in IPR2022-00766, IPR2022-01004, IPR2022-01005, IPR2022-01222, IPR2022-01223, and IPR2022-01248, which is the broader campaign against this family, but only IPR2022-01249 targets the '946.) The patent owner, Smart Mobile, is an aggressive appellate participant — it cross-appealed in 24-1675/24-1676 on APA grounds and won a vacatur-and-remand, and it is represented by Graves & Shaw, which publicly touted the "IPR win" confirming claims 1–13 and 16. Expect Smart Mobile to press the surviving claims 1–13/16 and to keep claims 17–21/26 alive on remand.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant being asserted on claims 14, 15, or 27–30: those claims are canceled. Cite the FWD's corrected disposition — "ORDERED that claims 14, 15, 17–21, and 26–30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,946 B1 have been shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be unpatentable" (Paper 53 as corrected by Paper 54) — and the 2026-08-27 affirmance, and move to dismiss or for summary judgment of no infringement as to those claims. Link: FWD/Errata.
2. If you are being asserted on claims 17–21 or 26: the invalidity judgment against them was vacated and remanded on 2026-08-27 (APA error in the motivation-to-combine analysis). Those claims are not finally canceled. Monitor the remand proceeding at the Board (PTAB E2E, IPR2022-01249) and the mandate; the Board must now address Smart Mobile's "bottlenecking" evidence before it can re-cancel claim 17 and its dependents.
3. Claims 1–13 and 16 are the hard core. They survived the IPR and a Federal Circuit appeal under a construction of "multiplexed signals" = "combining multiple signal streams into one." Any invalidity theory you advance must do one of two things: (a) use art that actually teaches combining multiple streams into a single composite for simultaneous transmission over a shared pathway, or (b) successfully challenge that construction (a difficult ask given the affirmance). Don't recycle Yegoshin/Bernard.
4. Watch the litigation termination status. The W.D. Tex. Samsung case (6:21-cv-00701) was resolved by a joint motion to vacate the claim construction order and dismiss with prejudice on 2024-07-15, with each party bearing its own costs. That dismissal — combined with the § 315(e)(2) estoppel now attaching to Apple and Samsung — materially shrinks the number of active adversaries on this expired patent.
5. Is there any remaining exposure? The '946 patent expired 2019-06-04. Confirm whether any pending complaint seeks damages that survive expiration (past damages only, subject to § 286) and asserts a surviving claim (1–13 or 16). If the accusation rests only on canceled claims, there is no live case for the patent owner.

Caveat on precision: the exact set of '946 claims embraced by the Federal Circuit's vacatur-and-remand is stated in the opinion as "the portion of the judgment at issue in the cross-appeal," and the cross-appeal is described as relating to "claims 17-21 and 23-26 of the '653 and '946 patents." The '946 has no live claims 22–25 in the challenged set, so the remanded '946 claims are best read as 17–21 and 26. Before relying on this in a filing, pull the 2026-08-27 opinion and the eventual mandate from the Federal Circuit's docket (24-1607 et seq.) to confirm the precise claim numbers.

I'll reconstruct this from the authoritative patent text first, then try to verify assignment details (reel/frame, correspondents) via search.

Let me dig further on assignment-record specifics and the IPR/litigation posture.

Let me try to locate reel/frame data and the original assignee's history.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 9,019,946 B1

Verification note up front (important): The ownership events below are reconstructed from the patent's own Google Patents legal-events record (the authoritative text supplied for this task) and from court / PTAB records. I was not able to retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center "Assignment Abstract of Title" view (reel/frame, execution date, and correspondent of record) for this patent in this session. Accordingly I do not state reel/frame numbers or correspondent names — I will not fabricate them. Where the record is blank I say so and give the exact search to run. Verified enforcement facts (IPRs, suits, CAFC appeals) are cited to the underlying PTAB/court documents.

Inventors

Named inventors (all three listed on the face of the patent, matching the PTAB record):

• Employer at time of filing: The record does not identify an employer. Because the original assignee is the inventors' own holding entity (IP Holdings, Inc.), the inventors appear to have been self-employed / operating through their own company rather than employed by a third-party operating company. I cannot confirm an outside employer with confidence.
• Unusual pattern — the opposite of the "inventors depart" tell: the classic fire-sale setup (all inventors leaving the original assignee within 12 months of filing) is not present. Instead, the inventors retained the family: Sunil and Sanjay Rao are the two members of the entity that owns and asserts the patent today, and Rekha K. Rao (who appears in the 2020-09-24 confirmatory recordings) appears to be the late Raman K. Rao's successor-in-interest — that last point is my inference from the surname and the recorded date, not a documented fact.
• Family/continuation character: the '946 is a deep continuation of a chain whose earliest filing is application 09/281,739, filed June 4, 1999 (per the patent's own cross-reference and the IPR2022-01249 institution decision). Numerous sibling patents were carved from the same chain and are asserted together (see below).

Original assignee

IP Holdings, Inc. (also recorded as "IP Holdings, a California corporation") — the named original assignee on the face of the patent and the inventors' own holding company.

• Products embodying the claims: No evidence of any commercial product. Nothing in the record shows IP Holdings or its successors shipped a device practicing the claims; enforcement has been exclusively by licensing/litigating.
• Primary line of business: Appears to be IP holding/monetization for the Rao family's mobile-communications inventions — i.e., the entity exists to own the patent family, not to make goods. (The court record describes the successor's activity as "efforts to monetize the asserted patents," plus an electronics lab/prototype work.)
• Current status: Not a public company; no Chapter 7/11, merger, or dissolution is reflected in the assignment events. It was not acquired by an operating company. Functionally, IP Holdings appears to have been wound down as an owner once title was consolidated into the Smart Mobile entities (2020).

Assignment timeline

Source for all entries: the Google Patents legal-events (reassignment) record for US 9,019,946 B1. Reel/frame and correspondent of record: not retrieved — flagged as [not verified] for each entry rather than invented.

• 2015-07-22 (executed date not shown) / recorded 2015-07-22 — Reel [not verified]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Raman K. Rao; Sanjay K. Rao; Sunil K. Rao (the inventors)
  • Assignee: IP Holdings, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not verified]
  • Context: Post-issuance housekeeping — inventors perfect title in their own holding company three months after grant (2015-04-28).

• 2015-07-28 (executed date not shown) / recorded 2015-07-28 — Reel [not verified]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: IP Holdings, Inc.
  • Assignee: Smart Mobile, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not verified]
  • Context: Internal reorganization — same-family transfer six days after the inventors' assignment; no arm's-length buyer.

• 2020-09-24 / recorded 2020-09-24 — Reel [not verified] (three separate recordings, same date)

  • Conveyance: Assignment (confirmatory in character)
  • Assignors (separately): Rekha K. Rao, Mrs.; Sanjay K. Rao, Mr.; Sunil K. Rao, Mr.
  • Assignee: Smart Mobile, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not verified]
  • Context: Chain-of-title cleanup transferring the individual Rao interests to Smart Mobile, Inc. — consistent with perfecting standing ahead of assertion.

• 2020-09-26 / recorded 2020-09-26 — Reel [not verified]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: IP Holdings, a California corporation
  • Assignee: Smart Mobile, Inc.
  • Correspondent: [not verified]
  • Context: Completion of the title cleanup — corporate side of IP Holdings conveyed in the same week as the individual conveyances.

• 2020-11-12 / recorded 2020-11-12 — Reel [not verified]

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Smart Mobile, Inc.
  • Assignee: Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (current assignee)
  • Correspondent: [not verified]
  • Context: Transfer to the asserting entity — the LLC became owner ~7 weeks after the cleanup and ~7 months before the first infringement suits were filed (June/July 2021).

Note on the Assignment Center: records do exist for this patent (six recorded post-issuance events above), so this is not a "no records" patent. To capture reel/frame and correspondents of record, run patent number 9019946 at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html or https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/. Those two fields are the ones that would firm up (or break) the "repeat correspondent" signal below.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9019946
    1999 : Earliest application filed in chain
    2014 : Continuation application filed Sep 8
    2015 : Patent issued Apr 28
         : Inventors assign to IP Holdings Inc
         : IP Holdings assigns to Smart Mobile Inc
    2020 : Raos confirm assignment to Smart Mobile Inc
         : IP Holdings assigns to Smart Mobile Inc
         : Transfer to Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
    2021 : First suits filed against Apple and Samsung
    2022 : Apple and Samsung file IPRs
    2024 : PTAB upholds claims 1 to 13 and 16
         : W D Texas case dismissed with prejudice

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (with one qualification).
Title moved from the original assignee IP Holdings, Inc. through Smart Mobile, Inc. to Smart Mobile Technologies LLC on 2020-11-12 (legal-events record). The terminal entity is a licensing/monetization-only LLC whose stated operations, per the court record, are "efforts to monetize the asserted patents" — no product embodying the claims. Qualification: this is not an anonymous registered-agent shell — the W.D. Tex./N.D. Cal. record shows the LLC's sole members are inventors Sunil and Sanjay Rao, who "moved to the WDTX" and maintain an "electronics project laboratory." So it is an inventor-controlled assertion vehicle, not a masked Delaware/Texas shell with an unknown principal. The naming tell ("Technologies LLC," no operating revenue) plus zero product evidence supports the signal.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
Smart Mobile Technologies LLC is the current assignee and is a tracked high-frequency patent plaintiff, not one of the legacy enumerated names (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, etc.). It surfaced as a high-volume campaigner through the Unified Patents patent portal (e.g., US 8,982,863 / US 9,084,291 pages listing "Parent Company: Smart Mobile Technologies LLC," Original Assignee "IP Holdings Inc") and through the Apple/Samsung IPR cluster (IPR2022-00766, -00808, -00979, -01003, -01004, -01005, -01222, -01223, -01248, -01249). This keeps the signal present but distinct from the "bought-and-asserted someone else's patent" archetype.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not verifiable here).
I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for any of the six recordings, so I cannot state that one attorney filed multiple links, and I will not guess. Related-but-distinct observation (flagged clearly as litigation counsel, not assignment correspondent): Philip J. Graves (and Greer N. Shaw) of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Pasadena, CA, appear as Smart Mobile's counsel across the campaign — e.g., the Patent Owner power of attorney in IPR2022-00766 (signed by Sunil K. Rao, 5/6/2022) names Hagens Berman practitioners, and Graves signed the W.D. Tex. infringement contentions (Jan. 12, 2022, Smart Mobile v. Samsung, 6:21-cv-00701). By 2024 the Graves & Shaw LLP firm (co-founded by Philip Graves) publicly claimed the IPR2022-01249 win for Smart Mobile. This is a single-counsel thread across multiple matters, which is worth flagging — but it is not evidence of a repeat assignment correspondent, which is the specific signal requested.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT.
Five recorded conveyance events between 2015-07-22 and 2020-11-12, including four recordings in a seven-week window (2020-09-24 → 2020-11-12) chained IP Holdings → (individual Raos) → Smart Mobile, Inc. → Smart Mobile Technologies LLC. The compression at the front of the assertion campaign (2020) is the pattern: consolidate individual + corporate interests, then drop title into the asserting LLC.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT on the strict 6-month test (though clearly preparatory).
The transfer to the asserting LLC (2020-11-12) precedes the first suits — June 11, 2021 (Smart Mobile Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc., 6:21-cv-00603, W.D. Tex.) and July 2, 2021 (v. Samsung, 6:21-cv-00701) — by roughly 7 months, outside the 6-month window. The 2020 cleanup was plainly done to establish a clean standing record, but I won't score it as a within-6-months assignment.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11, liquidation, or estate sale appears in the record. The chain runs through the inventors' own entities, not through a distressed operating company.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
There is no operating company transferring to an NPE that then asserts on its behalf against competitors. The transferor (IP Holdings) is the inventors' own holding vehicle, and the transferee's members are the inventors. This is inventor-originated assertion, not third-party privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, an active asserting plaintiff (12 asserted patents vs. Apple/Samsung; IPR2022-01249 FWD 2024-01-23; CAFC appeals 24-1607, -1609, -1610, -1676). It has not been neutralized by RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain terminates at Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, the assignee of record as of 2020-11-12, which is a monetization-only entity (court record: "all of its efforts to monetize the asserted patents") with no product embodying the claims — a licensing/assertion business, i.e., an NPE by the functional test. That verdict is reinforced by cascading transfers (five recordings, four of them compressed into Sept–Nov 2020) culminating in the asserting LLC just ahead of the June 11 / July 2, 2021 suits against Apple and Samsung. The one fact that distinguishes it from a classic "troll" is that the LLC is inventor-controlled (sole members Sunil and Sanjay Rao), so this is an inventor-originated PAE, not a bulk-buyer of third-party patents — and I could not verify reel/frame or correspondent-of-record data, so the "repeat correspondent" signal must be confirmed directly at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search 9019946) before it is relied upon.

Unverified items expressly flagged: all reel/frame numbers, all execution dates, and all correspondents of record. Nothing above should be treated as a documented assignment correspondent.

I'll research this patent's prior art citations. Let me search for authoritative sources.

I found the patent's references-cited section. Let me get the complete list.

Let me get the complete references-cited list from the patent document.

Important caveat before I answer

I was able to retrieve US 9,019,946 B1 and the beginning of its "References Cited" list, but the tooling cut off before I could obtain the complete front-page citation list (the U.S. Patent Documents list was truncated, and I could not retrieve the foreign-patent-document or "Other Publications" subsections). I will not invent the missing entries. Below I give you exactly what I confirmed, clearly separating verified material from items I could not verify.

Everything I cite comes from:

• Google Patents, US9019946B1 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US9019946
• The granted-PDF OCR (references-cited page) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6f/1c/bb/f138aac7312c58/US9019946.pdf
• Justia claims text — https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9019946](/patent/9019946)

I have not been able to open a USPTO-hosted "Patent Full-Text / Cited References" page for 9019946 within the tool-step limit, so I am flagging that the citation list below is partial.

1. Identifying the patent literally (no auto-correction)

• Patent number: US 9,019,946 B1
• Title: "Wireless and cellular voice and data transmission with multiple paths of communication"
• Application: 14/480,584; filed Sep. 8, 2014; granted Apr. 28, 2015
• Inventors: Raman K. Rao; Sunil K. Rao; Sanjay K. Rao
• Original assignee: IP Holdings, Inc.; current assignee Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
• Priority asserted: 1996-12-16 (Google's assumption, via the continuation chain)
• Continuation chain: 14/139,817 (Dec. 23, 2013) → 12/912,607 (Oct. 26, 2010) → 10/940,428 (Sep. 13, 2004) → 09/617,608 (Jul. 17, 2000) → CIP of 09/281,739 (Jun. 4, 1999)
• Status: Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration logged 2019-06-04)
• Litigation note: listed as subject to IPR2022-01249 (petitioner: Unified Patents, Final Written Decision) and several district-court / Federal Circuit cases (e.g., 3:23-cv-04168 N.D. Cal.; 6:21-cv-00701 and 6:21-cv-00603 W.D. Tex.; Fed. Cir. 24-1676/24-1610/24-1609).

Claims in play (from the Justia text I retrieved)

The retrieved claim text covers claims 14–27:

• Claim 14 — portable wireless device: memory; ≥2 antennas; ≥1 processor; a plurality of wireless transmit/receive (T/R) units, each configurable for one or more protocols; multi-band; IP-enabled; wireless LAN-enabled; first T/R unit configurable to communicate using a plurality of antennas.
• Claim 15 — depends on 14; device is in communication with a server, receives multiple IP data packets on a plurality of ports at substantially the same time and sends multiple data packets to the server to increase the communication rate.
• Claim 16 — depends on 14; multiplexing between protocols including transmission control, CDMA, TDMA, IP and/or combinations.
• Claim 17 — portable wireless communication device; first T/R unit over IP to a remote system on a first network path and second T/R unit on a second network path; processor combines the data paths into a single transmission interface to one or more applications; at least one network is a voice network and at least one is an IP data network.
• Claims 18–26 — depend from 17 (different networks/protocols/frequencies; voice vs. non-voice data; separate antennas; processors that differentiate/separately process the paths; multiple processors).
• Claim 27 — IP-enabled communication device with a plurality of wireless communication units supporting multiple T/R frequencies and protocols; first unit coupled to a first antenna set on a first network, second unit to a second antenna set on a second network; the first unit operating at a lower frequency than the second so the two act as complementary systems reducing interference.

(The abstract emphasizes "multiple IP-based wireless data transmissions … simultaneously … between a wireless device and a server," with multiple antennas, multiple T/R units, multiple processors, and multiple I/O ports.)

2. Prior art cited on the face of US 9,019,946 (partial, verified as retrieved)

These are the entries that OCR-printed in the "References Cited → U.S. Patent Documents" column before the fetch cut off. Dates and numbers are transcribed literally as shown; I did not correct them.

The list was truncated immediately after item 10 ("…Appl… "). Additional U.S. patent documents, all foreign patent documents, and any "Other Publications" are missing from my retrieval and I will not guess at them.

3. Direct answer to "which claim(s) each reference potentially anticipates"

I can only responsibly give a partial mapping, because (a) I have only 10 of N cited references, and (b) the examiner's actual §102/§103 mapping is documented in the Office Action / Notice of Allowance, which I could not retrieve. Based strictly on the material I confirmed:

• Broad "cellular voice + data" claims (cl. 17, 19, 21): most plausibly implicated by US 4,654,867 (Labedz) and, if its subject matter matches, US 5,121,391 (Paneth).
• "Multiple signals / multiple channels per device" claims (cl. 14, 16, 17): most plausibly implicated by US 5,121,391 (Paneth) and US 5,465,401 (Thompson).
• "Wireless LAN-enabled / IP-enabled multi-mode device" (cl. 14, 16): possibly US 5,410,738 (Diepstraten) and US 5,465,401 (Thompson) — but these are devices of a different era; a §102 anticipation would require each claim element to be present expressly, which I could not verify.

For the remaining cited references (items 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, plus everything truncated), I do not have enough verified information to assign an anticipating claim, and I am explicitly not fabricating one.

4. What you should do to get the authoritative, complete list

I recommend pulling the definitive record rather than relying on this partial extraction:

1. USPTO Patent Center / Public PAIR for application 14/480,584 — the "References Cited" appears on the granted front page and in the file-wrapper PTO-1449 / IDS forms.
2. Google Patents "References Cited" and "Cited By" tabs — https://patents.google.com/patent/US9019946 (the "Cited By" list is large and family-linked).
3. IPR2022-01249 (Unified Patents) papers on the PTAB site — the petition and Final Written Decision will contain the petitioner's asserted grounds and art, which is often more probative of "most relevant prior art" than the face-of-patent citations.
4. Justia — https://patents.justia.com/patent/9019946 for the full claim set.

If you can connect me to the Patent Center page or the IPR petition PDF in a future turn, I can complete the reference-by-reference §102 mapping for the entire citation list and the specific asserted grounds.

I'll research this patent's prosecution history, prior art, and the relevant IPR to ground the obviousness analysis.

Let me retrieve the IPR record and the key prior art references cited against this patent.

Let me pull the specific ground-by-ground reasoning from the final written decision and the file history.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,019,946 B1

"Wireless and cellular voice and data transmission with multiple paths of communication"
Inventors: Raman K. Rao, Sunil K. Rao, Sanjay K. Rao · Assignee: IP Holdings, Inc. → Smart Mobile, Inc. → Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
App. No. 14/480,584 · Filed 2014-09-08 · Granted 2015-04-28 · Status: Expired – Fee Related
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9019946](/patent/US9019946)/en

0. Sources, and two literal-reading flags

Per the operating rules, I interpret identifiers literally and do not auto-correct:

Flag 1 — Priority date. The Google Patents record lists "Prior art date 1996-12-16" and a "(priority date … an assumption)" of the same. The patent's own CROSS REFERENCE section, however, chains to application 09/281,739, filed June 4, 1999 (now U.S. 6,169,789) as the earliest application. The Federal Circuit likewise states that both asserted Rao patents "claim priority to the same 1999 application, Application No. 09/281,739, filed on June 4, 1999." I therefore treat June 4, 1999 as the operative critical date for § 103 purposes, and note the 1996-12-16 entry as an unverified assumption on the face of the database record. This matters: the IPR petitioner designated Yegoshin and Preiss as prior art under § 102(e), which is consistent with a 1999 filing date, not a 1996 one.

Flag 2 — "Prior Art section of this page." The fetched page exposes (a) "Prior art keywords: communication, wireless, network, data, receive"; (b) the References Cited list on the face of the patent; and (c) the litigation/PTAB links. The page as fetched shows reference numbers and surnames but truncated titles for most entries. I have therefore verified the content of the IPR references and the face-of-record references only to the extent stated below, and I explicitly mark where I am inferring from a title/number rather than from a verified disclosure.

1. The governing framework

• Statute: Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (priority 1999; the '946 patent issued from a pre-AIA-lineage continuation). The PTAB applied § 103(a) in IPR2022-01249.
• Test: Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) — scope/content of prior art; differences; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations — plus the "apparent reason to combine" inquiry of KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
• Person of ordinary skill (as framed in the IPR): a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus roughly two years of experience in the design/development of wireless communication systems, or equivalent. A POSITA is not required to be extraordinary — but note that in the IPR the petitioner's own expert testified that implementing Billström's cellular IP network on Yegoshin's phone "would take a fairly extraordinary person," a concession the Patent Owner used aggressively.

2. The prior art of record

2.1 References cited on the face of the '946 patent (the "Prior Art" list)

The examiner-cited U.S. patents include, in the order printed (numbers as printed, surnames as printed):

4,654,867 Labedz et al. · 4,675,653 Priestley · 5,025,486 Klughart · 5,121,391 Paneth et al. · 5,195,130 Weiss et al. · 5,379,341 Wan · 5,410,738 Diepstraten et al. · 5,457,714 Engel et al. · 5,465,401 Thompson · 5,507,035 Bantz et al. · 5,513,242 Mukerjee et al. · 5,517,553 Sato · 5,533,029 Gardner · 5,539,391 Yuen · 5,546,429 Chiason et al. · 5,555,258 Snelling et al. · 5,559,794 Willis et al. · D374,675 Sakai et al. · 5,565,929 Tanaka · 5,566,205 Delfino · 5,577,118 Sasaki et al. · 5,598,407 Bud et al. · 5,610,617 Gina et al. · 5,633,742 Shipley · 5,636,211 Newli et al. · 5,691,974 Zehavi et al. · 5,745,884 Carnegie et al. · 5,802,469 Uomura et al. · 5,818,918 Kelly et al. · 5,828,658 Ottersten et al. · 5,889,816 Agrawal et al. · 5,909,183 Borgstahl et al. · 5,960,039 Martin et al. · 6,062,422 Ayanoglu et al. · 6,067,290 Paulini et al. …
(References Cited list: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6f/1c/bb/f138aac7312c58/US9019946.pdf; also mirrored at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9319075B1](/patent/US9319075B1)#20)

These references are structurally important as a class: they establish that by the 1993–1996 window the art already contained multi-band/multi-channel radio transceivers, wireless-LAN access with multiple channels, multi-antenna arrangements, mobile-IP/roaming, and multimedia-over-wireless teachings. I have not verified the full disclosures of each; I flag 5,889,816 Agrawal (mobile IP/roaming), 6,062,422 Ayanoglu (multi-link), 5,610,617 Gina (wireless LAN) and 5,507,035 Bantz (multimedia) as the highest-value candidates for a § 103 combination, subject to verification.

2.2 References relied on in IPR2022-01249 (verified via FWD and Federal Circuit opinion)

2.3 Instituted grounds

(Institution Decision, IPR2022-01249, Paper 13, Jan. 24, 2023.)

3. The claim-construction finding that controls everything

The single most important outcome-determinative issue is "multiplexed signals."

• Independent claim 1 recites "a single interface comprised of multiplexed signals from the plurality of wireless transmit and receive components."
• Dependent claims 2 and 3 recite that the processor "multiplexes the receiving signals into the single transmission connection" (simultaneously in claim 2; sequentially in claim 3).
• The Board implicitly construed the term to require creation of a pre-transmission composite signal sent simultaneously along one shared physical pathway, excluding mere "switching" (sequential use of the same path).
• The Federal Circuit affirmed that construction, holding it is supported by the claim language ("multiplexed signals," not multiplexed paths), the specification ("The signal is sampled and may be multiplexed at each end, at a rate that assures accuracy"), and the extrinsic evidence:

"we agree with the Board's implicit construction of 'multiplexed signals' as meaning 'combining multiple signal streams into one' and not including multiple signals sequentially using the same path."
— Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Techs. LLC, Nos. 2024-1607 et al., slip op. at 15 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2026), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-1607/24-1607-2026-08-27.html

This construction defeats the strongest combinations on the primary independent claim because neither Yegoshin (switch-based cellular/WLAN selection) nor Bernard's second embodiment (one connection at a time over serial interface 701) discloses or suggests true multiplexing.

4. Combination-by-combination analysis

Ground 1 — Yegoshin + Johnston + Billström (claims 14, 15) → OBVIOUS

Claim 14 limitation mapping:

Motivation to combine (as found):

1. Yegoshin + Johnston: multiple antennas were a known technique for improved reception/diversity in mobile devices — KSR rationale (C)/(D): using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, with predictable results. Board credited petitioner's testimony and found a reasonable expectation of success.
2. Yegoshin + Billström: a POSITA "would have been motivated to combine Yegoshin and Billström to use IP and have packet data communications in a cellular system," i.e., to "provide an integrated system, expand coverage, and provide packet data services." This is the classic KSR (A) rationale — combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results — and petitioner expressly framed it as "a combination of known prior art elements combined according to known methods with predictable results" that "would not change the 'hallmark aspects' of the references."

Result: the Board held claims 14 and 15 unpatentable; not overturned on appeal.

Ground 2 — Yegoshin + Johnston + Billström + Bernard (claims 1–11, 16–21)

This is where the record splits.

Limitations the combination does reach (largely via the Ground 1 stack): the two-or-more antennas, the processors, the plurality of T/R units, multi-band, IP, WLAN, voice + non-voice.

The two limitations the combination fails on:

1. "a single interface comprised of multiplexed signals" (claim 1). The Board found that "the portions of Bernard cited by [petitioner], like Yegoshin, do not teach [multiplexed signals] expressly," that only Bernard's first embodiment (Fig. 13) describes a multiplexer, and that the second embodiment shows only "how one of the four connections can be established at a time." The Federal Circuit affirmed: "the Board's contrary findings are supported by substantial evidence."
2. "the processor on the mobile device is configured to combine the data paths into a single transmission interface to one or more applications" (claim 17). Here the Board did find Bernard's serial interface 701 to be a "single transmission interface," but the Federal Circuit vacated that conclusion.

The vacatur is analytically important. The Board reasoned that a skilled artisan would be motivated to "implement[] Bernard's cradle functionality internal to the mobile device to avoid the need for a separate cradle device and/or to achieve the benefits of Bernard's multi-network connectivity without requiring the mobile device to be connected to the cradle." But the Board said, erroneously, that "Neither [Smart Mobile] nor Dr. Cooklev address[es] that explanation." In fact Smart Mobile had argued "bottlenecking": introducing Bernard's serial interface into Yegoshin's phone would send data "serially, one bit at a time," at a rate slower than Yegoshin alone — i.e., the combination would degrade, not improve, the device.

The Federal Circuit held this was reversible error under the APA:

"In an obviousness analysis, the 'benefits, both lost and gained,' arising from the proposed combination, 'should be weighed against one another.' Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Remand is necessary so that the Board can undertake this analysis, considering all the evidence from both parties as to benefits and detriments arising from Apple's combination."

So on claim 17, the § 103 case is not presently sustained; it is remanded.

Ground 3 — + WO748 (claim 12)

Ground 4 — + Sainton (claims 13, 26)

Ground 5 — + Preiss (claims 27–30) → OBVIOUS

Claim 27 requires, inter alia, that "the first wireless communication unit is configured to operate at a lower frequency than the second … such that the first and second wireless communication units operate as complementary systems and reduce interference with each other," and that the second unit communicate to the remote server "in response to a change in the signal strength and/or connectivity of the first … or second … unit."

The petitioner's motivation was expressly framed for these claims:

"YEGOSHIN-JOHNSTON-BILLSTRÖM-BERNARD-PREISS RENDERS OBVIOUS TWO 'NETWORK PATHS' TO THE SAME 'REMOTE SERVER' 'IN RESPONSE TO A CHANGE IN THE SIGNAL STRENGTH AND/OR CONNECTIVITY'"
— Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner's Response, IPR2022-01249

The rationale is the "complementary systems" concept the patent's own Background disparages as old: "Some communications systems may rely on two separate systems; one at a higher frequency … and another providing a different set of frequencies, such as lower frequencies. The secondary system is used when signal fade is a problem in the main system." The specification admits this is prior art. This is a classic specification admission (cf. PharmaStem v. ViaCell) that hands the petitioner a motivation rationale: a POSITA seeking the claimed failover behavior would predictably combine two radios of different frequencies with signal-strength-based reselection — KSR rationales (A), (C), and (F) (design incentive / market force toward ubiquitous coverage).

The Board held claims 27–30 unpatentable, and that holding was not disturbed on appeal.

5. Additional combinations available from the face-of-record art

Beyond the IPR, the References Cited list supplies alternative § 103 attacks worth noting (each subject to verification):

• Multi-antenna + multi-band mobile transceiver: 5,533,029 Gardner (multi-band radio), 5,410,738 Diepstraten et al. (wireless LAN), 5,610,617 Gina et al. (wireless LAN) — combinable with any cellular-handset reference for the "two or more antennas" and "multi-band" limitations. This is the weakest part of the patent: multiple antennas and multi-band front-ends were plainly known.
• Mobile IP / roaming: 5,889,816 Agrawal et al. — combinable for the "IP enabled," "multiple IP addresses," and network-path-selection limitations (with Yegoshin and Billström).
• Multi-link / parallel-channel data: 6,062,422 Ayanoglu et al. — potentially the single most useful non-IPR reference, because it goes directly to the patent's stated core rationale: that "the rate at which the sampling and conversion takes place is a function of … the A/D and D/A conversion rates," so "having the data partitioned … and assigned to multiple channels … enables parallel processing."
• Multimedia over wireless: 5,507,035 Bantz et al., 5,513,242 Mukerjee et al. — for voice/non-voice simultaneity.
• Cradle/docking and multi-network adapters: 5,517,553 Sato, 5,802,469 Uomura et al. — for the FIG. 6 cradle-adapter and NWD-enablement features (claims 12, 13, 26 territory).

Motivations for these combinations are KSR-standard: (i) known elements combined by known methods with predictable results; (ii) substitution of one known element for another; (iii) known technique improving similar devices in the same way; (iv) market-driven incentive to increase wireless data rates — a need the '946 specification itself loudly articulates ("14.4 KBPS … is probably the best reliable speed for a wireless network that is commercially available").

6. Rebuttal side — where the obviousness case fails, and why

1. The specification is an admission, not a shield. The Background concedes the prior art already had a single antenna/single T/R, spread spectrum, and dual complementary high/low-frequency systems. The Summary concedes the invention "is possible due to advances in the art which allow the necessary components to be integrated, with the size shrunk to achieve the package, performance, and cost desired." A patentee that characterizes its contribution as combining known capabilities that became possible due to others' advances invites a KSR-type "predictable result of known techniques" finding.

2. But the two independent claims that matter have survived. The Federal Circuit's disposition:

"(1) affirm the Board's judgment that Apple did not prove claims 1–13 and 27–30 of the '653 patent and claims 1–13, 16, and 26 of the '946 patent are unpatentable and (2) vacate its judgment that claims 17–21 and 23–26 of both challenged patents are obvious and remand."
— 24-1607, slip op. at 20.

So as of today the challenger has not carried its burden on '946 claims 1–13, 16, and 26 after a full IPR and Federal Circuit review. The only claims currently held unpatentable are 14, 15, 27, 28, 29, 30 (unappealed or undisturbed); 17–21 are vacated and remanded for the Board to weigh the bottlenecking evidence.

3. There is an unresolved potential inconsistency to watch: if the Board on remand credits the "bottlenecking" detraction as to claim 17 (which lacks the "multiplexed signals" limitation and is therefore broader in that respect), a fortiori the same detraction argument cuts against the narrower claim 1 combination — but claim 1 already fails for lack of multiplexing disclosure.

4. Secondary considerations are undeveloped on this record. No objective indicia (long-felt need, commercial success, copying, industry praise) were credited in the FWD, and the Federal Circuit did not address them. The "long-felt need" narrative is available to the patentee from the specification's 14.4 kbps lament, but there is no evidence of nexus in the record I reviewed, and the patentee is a licensing entity. This is a genuine gap for the patentee if a future challenge reaches the Graham factors.

5. Claim 2 / claim 3 differentiation is a trap, not a shield. The Federal Circuit rejected the patentee's own claim-differentiation argument on appeal and explained that claims 2 and 3's "simultaneous"/"sequential" language concerns transmission of T/R connections, not the multiplexing of received signals in claim 1. Any future argument that claim 1 covers sequential as well as simultaneous transmission now contradicts the binding construction.

7. Bottom line

Combinations that do (or should) render claims obvious:

The single sentence that decides most of this patent: a POSITA in 1999 would readily have combined two radios (cellular + WLAN), one or more processors, two or more antennas, and IP addressing — that entire stack was old. What the IPR record does not establish is the combination of those signals into one pre-transmission composite signal on a single shared pathway. Under the Federal Circuit's now-binding construction, "switching between two networks" and "one connection at a time through a shared serial port" are legally insufficient. That is why the challengers won the multi-radio/failover/multi-IP claims (14, 15, 27–30) and lost the multiplexing claims (1–13, 16, 26).

Recommended framing for a future § 103 challenge (if one is brought): attack claim 1 through a reference that teaches actual signal multiplexing — e.g., a multicarrier or channel-bonding/multi-link reference (6,062,422 Ayanoglu is the most promising candidate on this record) rather than through Yegoshin/Bernard swapping; and be prepared to meet the bottlenecking counterargument head-on with evidence as to why the combination's benefits outweigh the detraction, per Henny Penny.

Caveats

• This is a technical/analyst assessment of the public record, not legal advice or a freedom-to-operate or validity opinion.
• I verified the IPR references and the Federal Circuit holding from the sources cited above. The face-of-record references in §2.1 are reproduced from the printed "References Cited" list; I have not independently verified each disclosure, and I have flagged any that I am characterizing from title/number alone.
• The 1996-12-16 date shown on the Google Patents page conflicts with the specification's own priority chain (09/281,739, June 4, 1999). I have used 1999 as the critical date. If 1996-12-16 were in fact the operative date, the prior-art status of Yegoshin (§ 102(e)), Preiss (§ 102(e)), Bernard, and Billström would require re-analysis, since the § 102(e) designations in the IPR are only coherent under a 1999 date.
• The '946 patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees, and it has a co-pending continuation (U.S. 9,319,075) and sibling (U.S. 8,842,653) with materially identical claims and specifications; the same prior art applies to them.