US 9113337

I'll search for authoritative information on US 9113337, including any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me check for litigation/CAFC activity and the full independent claim set.

Let me try to retrieve the exact text of claim 1 and confirm there's no 2026 appellate activity.

US Patent 9,113,337 — Analyst Summary

Search scope and confidence note

I searched for US 9,113,337 specifically. USPTO/Google Patents bibliographic data and the full patent text (as provided) are authoritative and consistent. I found no record of any CAFC 2026 appeal, ITC action, or district-court litigation involving US 9,113,337. If such a docket exists, it was not surfaced by my searches; I am not asserting it does not exist — only that I could not verify it.

Two literal-identifier caveats, per the "do not auto-correct" rule:

• WO 9113337 (a 1991 Beloit Corporation PCT publication) appears in search results and is a different document, not US 9,113,337. Do not conflate them.
• The string "9113337" also appears as an unrelated Bangladeshi phone number. Neither is the patent.

Bibliographic data

Family: EP 2782373 (A2/A3/B1; the granted B1, 2023-02-15, is titled "Radio communication apparatus with limited-rewritable information storage"), JP 2014-183539 A, and US 2014/0286490 A1.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9113337/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/9113337 ; http://data.epo.org/pise-server/rest/collections/lgpi/EP2782373B1.pdf

Abstract

An inexpensive radio communication apparatus is provided which can safely generate and share a key used for encryption/decryption and lower the possibility of loss of the key even if a packet error occurs at the time of reestablishment of a radio link. When a request for position registration made to a base unit is not made by encrypted communication using a common encryption key, the base unit transmits a message requesting generation of an initial encryption key; when the handset correctly responds, both base unit and handset store information on the initial encryption key.

Technology context

A DECT cordless telephone with a base unit (master) and handsets (slaves). Handset registration (DECT "Access rights procedure") generates a user authentication key (UAK) from an operator password via the KEY-ALLOCATE / AUTHENTICATION-REQUEST-REPLY exchange. Position registration then assigns a "Default Cipher Key" (DefCK, the initial encryption key) plus a cipher-key index. The invention's stated problem is avoiding repeated, error-prone, EEPROM-wear-inducing key regeneration while still recovering when the base and handset keys fall out of sync.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Note on completeness: I retrieved verbatim text for independent claims 5, 8, 11, 13, and 14 (from the Justia claim listing). I did not retrieve verbatim text for claim 1; I describe it based on the patent's "Solution to Problem" section and flag that as inferred, not verified.

• Claim 1 (base-unit-side apparatus — inferred, not verbatim): A base-unit-side radio communication apparatus that, when it receives an unencrypted signal from a handset-side apparatus, transmits an unencrypted signal requesting generation of a new common encryption key. This mirrors the first sentence of the patent's "Solution to Problem," but I could not confirm the exact claim wording.

• Claim 5 (base-unit-side apparatus): A base-side apparatus with a radio communication section and an information storage section holding an encryption key. When it receives a position-registration request that is not encrypted with an encryption key, the radio communication section sends a signal requesting generation of an initial encryption key.

• Claim 8 (handset-side apparatus): A handset-side apparatus that, after sending a signal encrypted with a first encryption key, stops using that key upon receiving a rejection signal from the base, then sends an unencrypted position-registration request and newly generates a second encryption key common to both sides, storing it.

• Claim 11 (system of base + handset): If the handset holds a key, it sends a key-encrypted signal. If the base's key matches the received signal's key, encrypted communication starts; if they do not match, the base signals rejection; the handset then stops encrypting and requests position registration via an unencrypted signal.

• Claim 13 (system of base + handset): If the handset does not hold an encryption key, it requests position registration using an unencrypted signal; the base processes that registration; upon receiving the base's registration acceptance, the handset keeps the radio link open for a certain period and waits for the base's new-common-key generation signal. (This is the "Embodiment 2" late-assignment behavior; dependent claim 12 adds that the base sends the new-key generation signal unencrypted in response to the unencrypted registration request.)

• Claim 14 (system of base + handset): The base determines whether the key used by the handset is the common key and, if not, indicates non-commonality; the handset then requests position registration unencrypted, and the base proceeds with registration/key processing accordingly.

Dependent claims: 2–4 depend from 1; 6–7 from 5 (claim 7 recites a nonvolatile memory); 9–10 from 8 (claim 10 recites storing the key together with an encryption index); 12 from 11. (Verbatim text confirmed for 6, 7, 9, 10, 12.)

Key technical takeaway

The claims are directed to the recovery/negotiation protocol between base and handset — specifically, using an unencrypted position-registration request as the trigger for the base to push a fresh common key — rather than to the cryptographic algorithm itself. The stated advantages are: minimal key-generation steps, reduced EEPROM rewrite wear, avoidance of re-registration after abnormal termination (battery loss, power failure), and lower wiretapping risk by generating the key only when encrypted position registration does not succeed.

Uncertainty flags

• Verbatim claim 1 text: not retrieved — treat the claim 1 description as inferred from the specification.
• CAFC 2026 activity: none found; absence of evidence only.
• Assignment/legal-status data carry Google Patents' own disclaimer that they are assumptions, not legal conclusions.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9113337 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me run a few more targeted searches, including on litigation-specific databases.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 9,113,337

Bottom line

I found no litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,113,337. I was unable to identify any district court case, ITC Section 337 investigation, PTAB proceeding, or Federal Circuit appeal in which U.S. 9,113,337 was asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue. To the extent my searches surfaced patent litigation, none of it names this patent.

I want to be explicit about the limits of this result: my searches were run against public web sources (which indexed the Google Patents page, EPO/Espacenet family data, and various litigation-related documents), not a native query of Docket Navigator, Lexis CourtLink, Unified Patents' Portal, or PACER. I was cut off before I could complete additional targeted queries. Accordingly, this should be read as "no litigation found in the sources searched," not as a definitive negative clearance.

Patent identification (to avoid false positives)

The subject patent is:

• U.S. 9,113,337 B2 — "Radio communication apparatus"
• Inventor: Toshiyuki Sugitani
• Assignee: Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. (originally Panasonic Corporation)
• Application No. 14/219,955; filed 2014-03-19; granted 2015-08-18
• Priority: JP 2013-058510 (2013-03-21)
• Adjusted expiration: 2034-04-10 (status: Active)
• Family: EP 2782373 (A2/A3/B1), JP 2014183539 A, US 2014/0286490 A1

This is a cordless-telephone / DECT encryption-key management patent. That subject matter is relevant context: it is the type of patent that could be asserted in a licensing campaign, but I found no evidence that it has been.

Important: results that look like this patent but are NOT

The searches returned numerous hits that contain the digit string "9113337" or the shorthand "'333" but are different documents, and per your instruction I am not treating them as the same identifier:

• WO 91/13337 A1 — Beloit Corp., "Method and apparatus for measuring irregularities and hardness of a roll surface" (paper-making machinery). This is an unrelated 1991 PCT publication and the source of most "9113337" noise.
• DE 9113337 U1 — Midori Co., Ltd., a writing-instrument container (German utility model).
• Various references to unrelated "'333 patents" (Manville, Immersion, Acer, Solaria, Shire, etc.) and to WO 2012/111377, which are different documents entirely.

None of these relate to U.S. 9,113,337.

What the family data shows (no litigation signal)

The EPO/Espacenet family record (EP 2782373 B1) lists only the granted family members and no opposition or litigation annotations. The patent's legal-status entry shows only prosecution/assignment events (assignment to PANASONIC CORPORATION in 2014, then to PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO., LTD. in 2014, with a corrective assignment recorded 2020-12-24) — a normal corporate chain of title, not litigation activity.

Suggested next steps to confirm

To convert "no litigation found" into a verified negative, I would recommend checking directly:

1. Unified Patents Portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (search the patent number; also check their PTAB caselist)
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP — docket search on "9113337"
3. USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records for 14/219,955, including any recorded licenses or security interests that might hint at enforcement
4. PTAB (IPR/PGR/CBM) search for the patent number
5. ITC EDIS — Section 337 investigations
6. CAFC docket search

Summary table (for what it is worth given no hits):

If you can point me to a specific database export or docket source, I can reconcile against it, but on the evidence available I cannot represent that any litigation exists.

I'll verify the empty structured list against public sources before writing the report.

Let me run additional targeted queries to confirm.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on U.S. 9,113,337: zero. The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list supplied in the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block is empty, and my independent public-source checks (Google Patents legal-events/third-party-history view, PTAB E2E, and general web search for IPR/PGR/CBM petitions naming this patent) surfaced no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no termination, and no appeal — so the defensive posture is unusual and worth stating plainly: there is nothing to defend against on estoppel grounds and nothing to rely on as invalidating precedent; the patent is un-challenged at the PTAB, fully intact, and Active with an adjusted expiration of 2034-04-10. For a defendant, that cuts both ways: no claims have been canceled (bad), but no petitioner has burned a ground or created a § 315(e) estoppel record (neutral-to-good, because every prior-art theory is still live for you to raise first).

No proceedings to report

There is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} to enumerate. Per the output template, the fields would be:

• Type: N/A — no Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method proceeding identified
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A (canonical ODP list: no AIA trial proceedings on file)
• Judge panel: N/A — no panel ever convened
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A — no FWD exists to appeal; no Federal Circuit docket entry found
• Defensive value: No IPR has been filed, so no claim has been narrowed or canceled by the Board, and no petitioner-side estoppel has been created. Your freedom to file is unencumbered.

Important caveat on my confidence. "Zero findings" is a claim about the absence of evidence, and I want to be precise about its basis. I verified against the structured ODP block (authoritative for this task) plus:

• Google Patents legal-events timeline for US9113337B2 — shows only prosecution and assignment events (2014-06-13 assignment to Panasonic Corporation; 2014-11-10 assignment to Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.; a corrective assignment recorded 2020-12-24), with no PTAB entries
• PTAB E2E / PTACTS public petition search (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) — no petition matching this patent
• General web search for IPR / PTAB co-occurring with 9113337 or Panasonic + Sugitani + "Radio communication apparatus" — every hit was either the unrelated WO 91/13337 A1 (Beloit Corp., paper-roll surface measurement), the unrelated DE 9113337 U1 (Midori Co. writing-instrument container), or unrelated "'333 patents" belonging to other owners (e.g., U.S. 7,628,333). None is U.S. 9,113,337.

I did not run a native API query against Docket Navigator or Lexis CourtLink, so treat this as "no PTAB activity found in the sources searched," not a certified negative clearance. It is corroborated by the earlier litigation analysis in this matter, which likewise found no district court, ITC § 337, or Federal Circuit activity — a consistent picture in which this patent has never been asserted or challenged in a public forum.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM was ever filed, every claim of U.S. 9,113,337 stands as issued — none canceled, none narrowed, none tested. There is no surviving-claims list to compile, because there is nothing to survive. The only narrowing of record comes from prosecution: the application (14/219,955, filed 2014-03-19) issued on 2015-08-18 and the family member EP 2782373 B1 granted 2023-02-15. Note that the source text supplied for this analysis includes the abstract and written description but not the verbatim claim set, so I am deliberately not opining on individual claim numbers or scope. Any claim-level validity assessment should start from the issued claims at the USPTO PatentCenter record for 14/219,955.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e) estoppel because there has been no petitioner. Practically, this means an accused infringer retains the full menu: file an IPR on § 102/§ 103 art, file a PGR-no, not available (see below), request ex parte reexamination, or run invalidity in district court — all without any "raised or reasonably could have raised" baggage. The converse risk is that if you file and lose, you create the estoppel; with no prior petitioner to have de-risked the art, first-mover IPR filers on an un-challenged Panasonic patent carry the full cost and risk themselves. The other relevant bar is § 315(b): if a complaint is ever served on you, the one-year clock runs, and after it expires IPR is foreclosed.

Available for a challenge. The patent's effective filing date (2013-03-21 priority; 2014-03-19 U.S. filing) falls after 2013-03-16, so it is post-AIA: IPR is available, but the nine-month PGR window is long closed (grant 2015-08-18, so PGR eligibility lapsed around 2016-05-18), and CBM is unavailable — the transition program sunset on 2020-09-16, and in any event a DECT/cordless-telephone key-management invention is a "technological invention" that would have been CBM-ineligible on the merits. That leaves IPR (and ex parte reexam) as the realistic PTAB-side tools. Prior art worth mining is the DECT/GAP standard-setting corpus: the patent itself cites ETSI EN 300 444 V2.3.1 (2012-04) "Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT); Generic Access Profile (GAP)" and the DECT early-encryption and "Default Cipher Key" procedures, which are the natural § 102(a)(1)/§ 103 obviousness well for the claim terms discussed in the specification (AUTHENTICATION-REQUEST with DEF=1, Default Cipher Key Index, start encryption with cipher-key-index: request/confirm/grant).

Pattern signals. None of the classic warning lights are present. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) appears anywhere in the chain — consistent with the patent's profile: a Panasonic captive-portfolio asset covering its own DECT cordless telephones, not an NPE-asserted monetization patent. The inventor, Toshiyuki Sugitani, holds a family of Panasonic cordless-telephone patents, suggesting a normal internal portfolio rather than a litigation vehicle. There are no multiple petitions by a single petitioner, no Patent Owner appeals, and no director-review activity. Absence of PTAB activity is itself meaningful: patents that are asserted broadly and repeatedly tend to attract IPRs, and this one has not.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are assessing invalidity pre-suit: you have a clean slate — no estoppel, no adverse FWD, no claim has been construed or canceled at the Board. Build a ground from the DECT/GAP materials the patent itself identifies. Start from the prosecution history of 14/219,955 via PatentCenter and the file wrapper for EP 2782373 B1 (granted 2023-02-15; the EPO opposition window closed roughly 2023-11-15, and Espacenet/EPO register shows no opposition on file).
2. If you have been served with a complaint: diarize the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year bar immediately from the service date. There is no § 315(e) estoppel problem from prior petitioners, but missing that date forfeits IPR entirely.
3. Timing: with no pendency, the PTAB timetable is pure statute — no institution is on file, so there is no institution deadline, no oral hearing date, and no FWD due date to track. If you file, expect a § 314(b) institution decision within ~6 months of the preliminary response and a statutory 1-year FWD deadline from institution (extendable for good cause under § 316(a)(11)).
4. Confirm the negative directly (because I could not query native docket tools): check PTAB E2E, the USPTO PTAB Decisions page, Unified Patents Portal, and CourtListener for any proceeding filed after the ODP ingest in this prompt. If one exists, it did not appear in any source I could reach, and it should be treated as new information rather than as a correction to the analysis above.

Bottom line for a defendant: this patent has not been hardened by any IPR and has not been weakened by any IPR. There are no canceled claims to point at, and no institution-denial reasoning to reuse. Any defense must be built from scratch, and the DECT/GAP standard is where the invalidity case is most naturally argued.

Assignment & Ownership Report — U.S. Patent No. 9,113,337

Subject: US 9,113,337 B2, "Radio communication apparatus" — Appl. No. 14/219,955; filed 2014-03-19; issued 2015-08-18; priority JP 2013-058510 (2013-03-21).

Source note / retrieval caveat: I was unable to pull the native Assignment Center record (reel/frame-level detail, correspondent-of-record, and execution dates) for Appl. No. 14/219,955 / Patent 9,113,337. The searches surfaced the Panasonic assignment template documents generically but not the record specific to this patent. What follows is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events register (authoritative for recorded dates and party names, but not for reel/frame or execution dates) plus the assignment facts recited in the patent's own text. I have not invented reel/frame numbers; where they are unknown I say so. The only reel/frame that appears anywhere in the record for this patent is 034194/0143, and even that is referenced only as the prior recording being corrected.

Inventors

• Toshiyuki Sugitani — sole named inventor. Address of record: Saga, JP (per the Justia bibliographic listing; the Google Patents page itself is silent on inventor address). Employer at time of filing: Panasonic Corporation (the inventor executed an assignment of the invention to Panasonic Corporation, recorded 2014-06-13 — see timeline).

Unusual-pattern check: Not present. There is a single inventor, no co-inventor team, and no evidence of inventor departure/portfolio-fire-sale dynamics. The inventor appears again as a named inventor on later Panasonic family filings (e.g., EP 3562132, "Intercom system," naming Sugitani, Toshiyuki and Kusui, Naotaka), which is consistent with continued employment rather than departure. I did not verify this against employment records and it is offered only as a weak corroborating signal.

Original assignee

Two records conflict, and I flag the contradiction rather than resolve it:

• The Google Patents page lists Original Assignee = Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. (Osaka), and also lists the same entity as Current Assignee.
• The previously generated section of this analysis stated Original assignee = Panasonic Corporation. The recorded chain (below) supports this: the first recorded conveyance runs Sugitani → Panasonic Corporation, and only later does Panasonic Corporation → Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.

Recommended reading of the record: the true original assignee (the entity that took the inventor's rights at filing) is Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. is the transferee of record as of November 2014 and is the assignee of the issued patent (issuance 2015-08-18 post-dates the transfer). The Google Patents "Original Assignee" field appears to reflect the assignee at grant, not at filing. This is a genuine inconsistency between sources and should be reconciled against the Assignment Abstract of Title for 14/219,955.

• Primary line of business: Panasonic Corporation — consumer electronics, home appliances, telecommunications equipment. The patent is directed to a DECT cordless telephone base unit/handset; Panasonic has long shipped DECT cordless phone products.
• Product embodying the claims: Almost certainly yes, in the general sense — Panasonic cordless telephones implement DECT GAP "Access rights"/position-registration behavior of exactly the kind described. I have not verified a specific model mapping the claimed recovery protocol, so I mark this qualitative, not evidentiary.
• Current status: Operating. Note for context (not a finding about this patent): Panasonic's group IP function is consolidated in Panasonic IP Management Co., Ltd., which is described by Panasonic as an IP-business subsidiary providing group IP services including licensing, transfer and acquisition. I did not verify the 2022 Panasonic corporate reorganization's effect on the named assignee entity, and I flag that as unresolved.

Assignment timeline

All three entries below are recorded dates from the Google Patents legal-events register. Execution dates were not retrievable and are not stated — do not treat the listed dates as execution dates. Reel/frame numbers were not retrievable except as noted.

• [execution date unknown] / recorded 2014-06-13 — Reel unknown

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (inventor-to-company)
  • Assignor: SUGITANI, TOSHIYUKI
  • Assignee: PANASONIC CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: Employment/obligation assignment — the inventor's rights in the application move to the Panasonic operating company. Category: acquisition (employment).

• [execution date unknown] / recorded 2014-11-10 — Reel unknown (see inference below)

  • Conveyance: Assignment (intra-group transfer)
  • Assignor: PANASONIC CORPORATION
  • Assignee: PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO., LTD.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization. Panasonic IP Management was established to consolidate the group's IP function, and this is the bulk intra-group conveyance of application 14/219,955 into that captive IP entity. Inference (flagged, not verified): the 2014-11-10 bulk transfer is plausibly the recording at reel 034194, frame 0143, because that is the reel/frame the later corrective assignment identifies as containing the erroneous application numbers (see next entry). I did not confirm this.

• [execution date unknown] / recorded 2020-12-24 — Reel unknown (corrects prior reel 034194/0143)

  • Conveyance: Assignment — corrective ("CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT TO CORRECT THE ERRONEOUSLY FILED APPLICATION NUMBERS 13/384239, 13/498734, 14/116681 AND 14/301144 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ON REEL 034194 FRAME 0143")
  • Assignor: PANASONIC CORPORATION
  • Assignee: PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO., LTD.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: Administrative correction only. The corrective paper fixes other application numbers (13/384239, 13/498734, 14/116681, 14/301144) that were erroneously captured in the 2014 bulk recording. 14/219,955 is not among the erroneous numbers, so this corrective filing does not disturb the chain of title for the patent at issue; it is a housekeeping entry on the same reel as the original bulk transfer.

No post-2020 assignments are recorded, and no assignment to any entity outside the Panasonic group is recorded. No security interests, licenses, mergers, or releases appear in the register for this patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9113337
    2013 : JP priority application filed
    2014 : US application filed 19 Mar
         : Inventor assigns to Panasonic Corporation
         : Transferred to Panasonic IP Management
    2015 : US patent issued 18 Aug
    2020 : Corrective assignment recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting — with an explicit definitional caveat.

Justification: Every recorded conveyance stays inside the Panasonic corporate family: the inventor assigned to Panasonic Corporation (recorded 2014-06-13), which transferred the application to its captive IP subsidiary Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. (recorded 2014-11-10, plausibly the bulk recording at reel 034194/0143), followed only by an administrative corrective assignment recorded 2020-12-24 that fixed unrelated application numbers and did not alter title. There is no shell-entity transfer, no known-asserter assignee, no cascading LLC chain, no fire-sale, and no litigation. I select "Defensive / non-asserting" because the patent is held by an operating company and is not being asserted; I note that the framework's sub-definition of that verdict contemplates termination at a defensive aggregator (RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN), which does not match here — the holder is a captive IP arm, not an aggregator. None of the eight NPE signals is present.

Caveat on completeness: The correspondent-of-record for each entry — the highest-value NPE tell — was not retrieved, because I could not load the Assignment Center abstract for this patent. If the correspondent turns out to be a high-frequency NPE recording firm, signal #3 would need re-evaluation; on the current record there is no basis for that inference. Verify directly at the USPTO Patent Assignment Search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — search patent no. 9113337 or application 14/219,955).

Verification/reconciliation TODO: The Google Patents "Original Assignee = Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd." field conflicts with the recorded chain showing Panasonic Corporation as the first assignee; the Assignment Abstract of Title (and the PTOL-85B / cover sheet) should be pulled to fix the assignee of record at grant.

I'll research the prior-art citations of record for US 9,113,337 and verify each reference.

I attempted to pull the front‑page "References Cited" list and to query USPTO/Justia directly, but I exhausted my search budget mid‑retrieval. Below is what I can state with confidence and what remains unverified. I have flagged the gaps explicitly rather than filling them in.

A note on the date: your task header says April 26, 2026 while my system clock reads 2026‑09‑27. I flag the discrepancy rather than resolve it; it does not affect the prior‑art analysis.

Prior‑Art Report — U.S. Patent No. 9,113,337 B2

1. Method, scope, and hard limitations

• The authoritative source for this analysis is the full patent text you supplied (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑26). Per your operating rules, I treat that text as controlling over search results.
• That text contains an explicit "CITATION LIST" with exactly two references of record: one Patent Literature (PTL 1) and one Non‑Patent Literature (NPL 1). It does not contain a US front‑page "References Cited / U.S. Patent Documents" table.
• My web searches for the string "9113337" were dominated by unrelated documents (see §5). I was unable to surface a US examiner‑cited reference list for this patent before hitting the tool limit. Therefore:
  • I can affirmatively identify the two references the applicant cited of record.
  • I cannot rule out the existence of additional examiner‑cited US patent documents on the granted front page that simply were not returned by my searches.

Bottom line: the only "patent citation" I can verify for US 9,113,337 is JP 2001‑5384. I will not manufacture a longer list.

2. The patent (brief, cross‑referencing prior sections)

US 9,113,337 B2 — "Radio communication apparatus," Sugitani, Panasonic. App. 14/219,955, filed 2014‑03‑19, priority JP 2013‑058510 (2013‑03‑21), granted 2015‑08‑18. Claims 1–14; independents 1, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14. Subject matter: DECT cordless base/handset protocol for generating and sharing a "Default Cipher Key" (DefCK) using an unencrypted position‑registration request as the trigger. (Full breakdown in the previously generated summary — not repeated here.)

3. References of record

3.1 PTL 1 — JP 2001‑5384

• Full citation: Japanese Patent Application Laid‑Open (Kokai) No. 2001‑5384. (Listed in the patent's CITATION LIST as "PTL 1 / Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2001-5384.")
• Publication/filing date: Laid‑open publications in the 2001‑00xxxx series were published in 2001; I could not verify the exact publication date, title, applicant, or technical content within my search budget. Treat the date as "2001, exact date unverified."
• Brief description: Not verified. I did not retrieve the document's text. Given that it is the only patent document the applicant listed in a DECT cordless‑telephone encryption case, it is plausibly a Japanese cordless‑telephone/radio‑security reference, but I will not assert its subject matter.
• § 102 analysis: Because the reference qualifies as a printed publication under § 102(a)(1) (published 2001, well before the 2013‑03‑21 priority date), it is available as prior art. However, I cannot map it to any claim (no § 102 anticipation, no § 103 combination) without its content. Any claim‑level anticipation statement about JP 2001‑5384 from me would be speculative and is withheld.

3.2 NPL 1 — ETSI EN 300 444 V2.3.1 (2012‑04), DECT GAP

• Full citation: ETSI EN 300 444 V2.3.1 (2012‑04), "Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT); Generic Access Profile (GAP)," European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
• Publication/filing date: April 2012 (version V2.3.1).
• Brief description: This is the DECT Generic Access Profile standard — the interoperability profile defining, among other things, the registration ("Access rights") and location/position registration procedures and the MAC/NWK message set the patent repeatedly cites by name: access_request, bearer_confirm, release (MAC); {ACCESS‑RIGHTS‑REQUEST}, {KEY‑ALLOCATE}, {AUTHENTICATION‑REQUEST}, {AUTHENTICATION‑REPLY}, {ACCESS‑RIGHTS‑ACCEPT}, {LOCATE‑REQUEST}, {LOCATE‑ACCEPT}, {TEMPORARY‑IDENTITY‑ASSIGN‑ACK} (NWK); and the cipher‑activation messages start encryption with cipher key-index: request/confirm/grant. In short, it is the state‑of‑the‑art baseline the patent builds on, not the invention.
• § 102 analysis:
  • Qualifies as prior art: yes — a printed publication under § 102(a)(1) (April 2012 < 2013‑03‑21 priority).
  • Anticipation of the independent claims: unlikely, and I could not verify it. The independent claims are directed to the recovery/negotiation trigger — e.g., claim 1's "when receiving an unencrypted signal … transmit a signal to request generation of a new common encryption key"; claim 5's response to an unencrypted position‑registration request by sending an initial‑key‑generation request; claim 8's stop‑using‑first‑key‑on‑rejection→unencrypted‑registration→generate‑second‑key flow; and the claims 11/13/14 reject‑then‑re‑register sequences. A general GAP standard would describe the baseline registration/cipher‑activation procedures but, on its face, is not shown to disclose the specific base‑unit logic of dynamically regenerating/pushing a new common cipher key in response to an unencrypted request. I therefore assess this reference as § 102(a) background / § 103 context, not a § 102 anticipation — subject to the caveat that I did not page through the standard's full text.
  • Most plausible § 103 role: combined with another reference, it could supply the DECT message‑level elements (what "initial encryption start request" / "position registration request" look like) that several dependent claims recite (e.g., the index/cipher‑key machinery in claims 7, 9, 10, 12).

4. Claim‑level anticipation table (as far as verifiable)

No verified § 102 anticipation can be reported. Nothing in the two cited references, as far as I could inspect, discloses the specific base‑initiated key‑regeneration trigger that distinguishes the independent claims.

5. Identifier confusion — results that are NOT this patent

Per your strict "do not auto‑correct" rule, these are different documents that surfaced for the digit string "9113337" and must not be conflated with US 9,113,337:

• WO 91/13337 A1 — Beloit Corp., "Method and apparatus for measuring irregularities and hardness of a roll surface" (paper‑machine roll nip measurement). Priority 1990‑03‑01; published 1991‑09‑05. This unrelated 1991 PCT publication is the source of most "9113337" noise. (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/WO-9113337-A1)
• DE 9113337 U1 — Midori Co., Ltd., a container for writing instruments (German utility model). (https://patents.google.com/patent/DE9113337U1)
• Unrelated "'333" patents (Manville, Immersion, Acer, Solaria, Shire, etc.) and various unrelated "337" hits (e.g., a Toshiba DECT phone number string).

6. What I could not verify (flagged, not resolved)

1. The US front‑page "References Cited / U.S. Patent Documents" list — my authority (your supplied text) does not contain it, and searches did not surface it. If a granted front page lists examiner‑cited US patents, that list is missing from this report, and my "only one patent citation" statement should be read as "only one applicant‑cited/verifiable patent citation."
2. Content, title, and exact date of JP 2001‑5384 — not retrieved.
3. Text of ETSI EN 300 444 V2.3.1 — not retrieved (analysis is from the patent's own citations of its message names and the standard's known scope).
4. The EP family member's search report. EP 2782373 (the family of this patent) may itself carry an EPO search‑report citation list; I saw only its bibliographic/family record (which lists WO2018053747A1 as a forward "Cited by" document — i.e., a later application citing this patent, not prior art). The EP search‑report citations, if any, would be a useful cross‑check for US examiner citations.

7. Recommended verification steps (to convert the gaps into a complete prior‑art table)

1. USPTO Patent Center, application 14/219,955 — retrieve the "References Cited" / PTO‑892 and the granted front page: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ (app no. 14/219,955)
2. Google Patents citations panel for this patent (Patent Citations + Cited By): https://patents.google.com/patent/US9113337/en
3. Justia claim/reference listing: https://patents.justia.com/patent/9113337
4. JPO J‑PlatPat for JP 2001‑5384 (title, applicant, abstract, exact publication date): https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/
5. ETSI official document page for EN 300 444 V2.3.1 (confirm publication date and access the PDF): https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/300400_300499/[300444](/patent/300444)/
6. EP 2782373 European Search Report (EPO Register / Global Dossier) for a parallel citation list: https://register.epo.org/

Summary of findings: The only reference of record I can verify is the single applicant‑cited patent JP 2001‑5384, together with the non‑patent standard ETSI EN 300 444 V2.3.1 (2012‑04). Both are technically prior art (each a printed publication under § 102(a)(1), both predating the 2013‑03‑21 priority date), but on the evidence available neither is shown to anticipate any of claims 1–14; at most the DECT GAP standard supplies state‑of‑the‑art/§ 103 context for the DECT message and key‑index elements. I could not retrieve JP 2001‑5384's content, nor any US examiner‑cited patent list, and I have flagged those as open gaps rather than filling them with inference.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior art of record. Let me retrieve the cited references.

Let me dig specifically into JP 2001-5384 and the DECT GAP early-encryption procedure, since those are the two references of record.

Let me pin down JP 2001-5384 (PTL 1) specifically, since the obviousness analysis depends on what it teaches.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,113,337 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Scope, standard, and evidence caveats

Legal framework. This application was filed 2014-03-19 with a JP priority of 2013-03-21, so the AIA version of §§ 102/103 governs. The analysis follows Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of the prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations), as refined by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (a claimed combination is obvious where the elements were known, the combination was "obvious to try," or it flows from a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" and a "design incentive" in the same field).

Two limitations on this analysis, carried forward from the earlier sections:

1. Claim 1 verbatim text was never retrieved. Its description is inferred from the "Solution to Problem" section. All claim-1 statements below are accordingly flagged as inferred; a real § 103 challenge must chart against the issued claim text.
2. I could not retrieve the actual text of PTL 1 / JP 2001-5384. My characterization of it rests on the applicant's own description of that reference in the specification and in the JP family member (JP 2014-183539 A). That is usable (it is an admission about the prior art) but is not a substitute for the document itself.

1. Level of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A POSITA here would be an engineer with ~3–5 years' experience in DECT/cordless-telephony protocol and security development, familiar with:

• ETSI EN 300 175 (DECT base standard, esp. Part 7 "Security features"), EN 300 444 (GAP), and TS 102 841 (GAP security test specification);
• the MAC-layer cipher control messages (start encryption with cipher key-index: request/confirm/grant) and NWK-layer {LOCATE-REQUEST} / {LOCATE-ACCEPT} / {AUTHENTICATION-REQUEST/REPLY} procedures; and
• conventional non-volatile key storage (EEPROM) with limited write endurance.

This is a low level of skill for the subject matter — the claims are directed to protocol-sequencing and storage-management choices, not to novel cryptography. That cuts against non-obviousness.

2. The prior art of record, and what it actually discloses

(a) ETSI EN 300 444 V2.3.1 (2012-04), "DECT Generic Access Profile (GAP)" — NPL 1 (cited on the face of the patent)

This is the closest reference and it is devastatingly on point because the patent's own embodiments are largely a restatement of GAP § 8.45.3 ("Early encryption") and its test cases. Retrieved content:

• Unencrypted position registration triggers a key-generation request with an index. GAP test case TC_FT_GAP.N.35_BV_301 (per ETSI TS 102 841 V1.5.1) requires: PP sends an unencrypted {LOCATE-REQUEST} indicating support of re-keying/early encryption; the FT then sends {AUTHENTICATION-REQUEST} with DEF-bit = 1 and a Default Cipher Key Index; the PP computes the DCK and saves it as Def_DCK_1; the FT stores it under that index. (TS 102 841)
• The AUTHENTICATION-REQUEST/DEF=1 may precede or follow LOCATE-ACCEPT — the test spec states either ordering is "valid behaviour." This is the entire premise of the patent's Embodiment 2 (assign the key after position registration completes).
• The base can reject an encryption-start attempt. TC_PT_GAP.N.35_BV_306: "PP releases connection in case FP rejects early encryption on MAC layer" — i.e., the FT rejecting the start encryption with cipher key-index on MAC is an express, standardized behavior.
• Multiple DefCKs under different indices, and the FT may accept either stored index (BV_305).
• Index semantics. The Default Cipher Key Index "shall be system wide unique so that the related MAC procedures can rely on this uniqueness to identify the requested default cipher key index," and a DefCK "can be uniquely identified by … IPUI, cipher key type 'derived' and cipher key number." (EN 300 444 V2.3.1, cl. 8.45.3 / Table 87)
• DefCK bit/field coding (DEF bit, octets 5a/5b/5c for the index and algorithm) — the exact "DEF = 1 + index" mechanism the patent recites.

Supporting: EN 300 175-7 defines the trio Derived/Static/Default Cipher Key and the MAC cipher-switching messages (EN 300 175-7); DECT Forum's security overview confirms early encryption ("encryption activation immediately after connection establishment, before any higher layer protocol messages") (dect.org).

Net: GAP discloses (i) unencrypted position registration → base-originated key-generation request carrying an index, (ii) both sides deriving and storing a common key + index, (iii) base-side rejection of an encryption start, and (iv) key assignment before or after registration acceptance.

(b) JP 2001-5384 A — PTL 1 (Japanese laid-open, published 2001)

Per the applicant's own characterization in the specification and the JP family document JP 2014-183539 A, PTL 1 discloses a cordless/radio communication arrangement in which an encryption key is generated and written to non-volatile storage in connection with establishing the radio link — with the applicant expressly criticizing it as follows:

「特許文献１に示されている構成では、不揮発性記憶部の書き換え回数が多くなり、不揮発性記憶部として書き換え可能回数に制限がある安価なデバイスを使うことが出来ないという課題がある。」
(PTL 1's configuration increases the number of rewrites of the non-volatile storage, so an inexpensive device with a limited rewrite count cannot be used.)

So PTL 1 supplies exactly the two general teachings the patent leans on: (1) a base/handset radio system that regenerates a shared encryption key as part of the normal link procedure, and (2) key storage in (EEPROM-class) non-volatile memory. The patent's asserted contribution over PTL 1 is confined to how often / when that regeneration is triggered.

(c) Secondary reference surfaced in search (would be known to a POSITA): US 8,681,988 B2 / DE 10 2009 029 828 B4

This family teaches: a Default Cipher Key agreed between base and handset; storage of the DefCK permanently in a non-volatile memory such as an EEPROM; a system-wide-unique cipher key index (CKID) assigned by the base at DefCK agreement and transmitted in the MAC encryption procedure; and the request/confirm/grant cipher-index handshake — with the express capability to re-key/update the DefCK "multiple times during the validity of a registration." (US 8,681,988). This reference is useful chiefly for the dependent-claim limitations (non-volatile storage + stored key/index pair), and it also cuts against any argument that a later DefCK reassignment is novel.

3. What is actually left after GAP

Mapping the patent's Figures 6–8 onto GAP:

The patent's only genuine delta over GAP is therefore the closed recovery loop: reject → handset drops encryption → handset sends unencrypted position-registration → base pushes a new DefCK + index. And that delta is the mere concatenation of two behaviors GAP already discloses (a rejection path and an unencrypted-LOCATE-triggered DefCK assignment), in the same protocol, for the same purpose.

4. Claim-by-claim § 103 analysis

Ground 1 — GAP alone (this is really a § 102 attack for the broadest claims)

Ground 2 — GAP + JP 2001-5384 (the two references of record combined)

If any independent claim is read narrowly to require regenerating a common key through the normal radio-link/registration procedure of a base-handset cordless system (rather than merely the GAP-standardized early-encryption flow), then PTL 1 supplies that general architecture, and the combination is still obvious:

• GAP supplies the selective, index-addressed DefCK assignment triggered by unencrypted position registration and the rejection path.
• PTL 1 supplies the base/handset cordless system that regenerates and non-volatilely stores an encryption key during link setup — the architecture the patent presupposes.
• The patent's stated advance is nothing more than gating PTL 1's regeneration to the failure case (i.e., only when encrypted position registration does not succeed). Under KSR, "where the technique has been used to improve one device … a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Reducing how often an operation occurs — and thereby reducing write-endurance consumption — is the paradigm of a predictable result of a design choice, not a patentable advance.

Ground 3 — Either ground + US 8,681,988 / DE 10 2009 029 828 (dependent claims)

• Claim 7 (non-volatile memory): US 8,681,988 teaches storing the DefCK "permanently in a nonvolatile memory, such as an EEPROM"; EN 300 175-7 likewise treats DefCK as persistent. Obvious.
• Claim 10 (store key + encryption index): The CKID/Default Cipher Key Index pairing is standard (EN 300 444 Table 87; US 8,681,988's system-wide-unique CKID). Obvious.
• Claims 2–4, 6, 9, 12 (verbatim not fully retrieved): these recite index storage, unencrypted-transmission, and link-holding mechanics, all directly supported by GAP / EN 300 175-7 / US 8,681,988.

5. Motivation to combine (the KSR factors)

1. Same field, same problem, same actors. All references are DECT cordless-telephony key management. The POSITA implementing a GAP-compliant handset is required to consult GAP; adding regeneration-on-failure uses the same messages and layers it already implements.
2. Express interoperability teaching. GAP is an interoperability standard; the patent itself acknowledges that its Embodiment 2 is "beneficial in the interconnection between a device that supports early encryption and a device that does not." A standard's own text supplies the motivation.
3. Finite, identified, predictable solutions. Given a rejection of an encryption start, a POSITA has essentially one standard-conformant option: fall back to an unencrypted LOCATE-REQUEST and re-derive the DefCK (the only key-provisioning path GAP defines). This is "obvious to try."
4. Recognized design incentive. The patent's own rationale — conserving limited EEPROM rewrite cycles and avoiding forced re-registration after power loss/battery depletion — is an ordinary engineering constraint. GAP explicitly permits the AUTHENTICATION-REQUEST/DEF=1 to occur in either order relative to LOCATE-ACCEPT, giving the POSITA a positive teaching to choose whichever ordering minimizes writes.
5. No teaching away. Nothing in GAP, EN 300 175-7, or PTL 1 warns against regenerating a DefCK on an unencrypted position registration; to the contrary, GAP's BV_305 shows re-keying with a new index is supported and anticipated.

6. Where this obviousness case is vulnerable (be candid)

• PTL 1 content is unverified. Everything I say about JP 2001-5384 is derived from the applicant's characterization, not the document. If PTL 1 in fact already discloses triggering regeneration on every link establishment (as the applicant says), then PTL 1 may be closer than the patent admits — helping the § 103 case. But if a challenger must argue PTL 1 alone, the content must be confirmed.
• Claim 1 text unknown. If issued claim 1 recites more than "unencrypted in → unencrypted key-generation-request out" — e.g., a specific ordering or a specific rejection step — the anticipation framing fails and the analysis must shift fully to § 103, which is still strong but requires the claim chart to be rebuilt.
• The narrowest point in the patent's favor: GAP may not, in a single literal passage, describe the sequence "base rejects encryption → handset re-sends unencrypted LOCATE → base pushes fresh DefCK." A patentee would argue this specific recovery loop is the invention. The counter is that GAP discloses each half in the same protocol for the same purpose, making the combination an obvious arrangement of known elements — but this is the argument most likely to be litigated.
• Secondary considerations: none found. No evidence of unexpected results, and (as noted in the earlier sections) no litigation, licensing campaign, or commercial-success record was located that could supply objective indicia with a nexus to the claims. The asserted EEPROM-endurance and wiretap-resistance benefits are the predictable consequence of generating the key less often — a result that, as the patent's own text concedes, follows directly from "the sequence to generate the initial encryption key is performed only once."

7. Bottom line

The § 103 case against US 9,113,337 is strong, and rests almost entirely on the reference the examiner already cited — ETSI EN 300 444 V2.3.1 (GAP), clause 8.45.3 "Early encryption" and its test cases — because that standard discloses the unencrypted-LOCATE-REQUEST-triggered, index-addressed DefCK assignment (claims 1 and 5), the base-side rejection of an encryption start (claims 8, 11, 14), and permission for key assignment before or after registration acceptance (claim 13).

• Claims 1 and 5 appear anticipated by GAP alone (subject to verification of issued claim 1's text).
• Claims 8, 11, 13, 14 are obvious over GAP alone, as concatenations of behaviors GAP expressly discloses.
• All claims are obvious over GAP in view of JP 2001-5384 (architectural teaching of regenerating and non-volatilely storing a cordless-phone key during link setup), and the dependent claims are further obvious over US 8,681,988 B2 / DE 10 2009 029 828 B4 for the non-volatile-storage and stored key-plus-index limitations.
• Motivation is supplied by the shared DECT field, the interoperability mandate of the GAP standard, the finite set of standard-conformant fallback behaviors, and the ordinary design incentive to reduce EEPROM write cycles and avoid forced re-registration.

Caveats that must be resolved before filing any § 103 challenge: obtain the verbatim text of independent claim 1 (not retrieved here), obtain the full text of JP 2001-5384 (characterized here only from the applicant's admissions), and confirm the exact wording of GAP § 8.45.3 in V2.3.1 as it stood on 2012-04 (before the 2013-03-21 priority date), since the retrieved excerpts are drawn partly from later versions and from the companion test specification TS 102 841.