US 9141960

I'll search for US patent 9141960 in the USPTO database and check for any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

The first search returned the patent and related litigation documents. The CAFC 2026 docket search returned no results. Let me check for any Federal Circuit appeal activity tied to this patent or its IPR.

I found the core patent records plus related litigation. Let me do one more targeted check for any Federal Circuit appeal specifically involving the '960 patent (9141960) itself, as opposed to its family members.

US Patent 9,141,960 (9141960) — Summary

Search results

I searched the USPTO database and 2026 Federal Circuit dockets for the specific number 9141960 (interpreted literally as US9141960B2). The patent record is confirmed via Google Patents, USPTO image file wrapper (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US9141960.pdf), Docket Alarm, and the PTAB record for IPR2023-00246.

Bibliographic data

• Title: Venue and event recommendations for a user of a portable media player device
• Patent number: US9141960B2 (Appl. No. 12/144,532)
• Filing date: June 23, 2008
• Priority date: June 22, 2007 (Provisional Appl. 60/945,677)
• Issue date: September 22, 2015
• Inventors: Evan Feldman (Woodinville, WA); Jonathan Nelson (Seattle, WA)
• Assignee: Varia Holdings LLC (original; via chain Varia Mobil LLC → Varia LLC → Varia Holdings LLC). Assigned to Wildseed Mobile LLC on August 19, 2021, with a later security interest to LIT-US Chisum 21-A, LLC. (Per Google Patents, the current listed assignee is Wildseed Mobile LLC.)
• Status: Active; adjusted expiration December 26, 2031 (35 U.S.C. § 154(b) adjustment noted).
• Claims/drawings: 25 claims; 4 drawing sheets.

Abstract (verbatim, spelling as published)

"A method and system for generating by a server, a recommendation for a venue or an event of interest proximally located to an inferred current location of a user of a portable media player devise. In an embodiment, a server may determine one or more media preferences for a user based at least in part on media stored on or accessed using the portable media player devise of the user. The server may generate information related to the current location or a recommendation for a venue or an event of interest to the user based at least in part on the one or more media preferences and the inferred current location of the user. Once generated, the server then may communicate the recommendation (or the information) to the user, e.g. the portable media player devise. Other embodiments may also be described and claimed."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The patent has four independent claims:

1. Claim 1 (server-side method): A server retrieves media stored on or accessed by the user's portable media player device (or information about that media), infers the user's entertainment preferences from it, accesses sources of information about venues/events near the user's current location, identifies at least one venue/event of interest based on the inferred preferences and the current location, generates a recommendation for it, and communicates that recommendation to the user.

2. Claim 11 (device-side method): The portable media player device sends its current location to the server (to help the server infer the user's location) and receives back a recommendation of a nearby event/venue of interest. The recommendation is generated from the inferred location, server-accessed venue/event data, and entertainment preferences the server inferred by analyzing media stored on or accessed by the device.

3. Claim 16 (portable media player device): A handheld media player with a storage medium and a player configured to (a) selectively play media, (b) provide its current location to the server, and (c) receive a recommendation of a proximally located venue/event of interest, where the recommendation is based on the inferred location, server-accessed venue/event data, and at least one inferred entertainment preference derived from analysis of the device's media.

4. Claim 21 (server apparatus): A server with storage and a processor configured to retrieve the media/information, infer entertainment preferences, access venue/event information sources, identify a venue/event of interest, generate a recommendation, and communicate it to the user.

Dependent claims (2–5, 12–15, 17–20, 22–23) particularize the venue/event types: music clubs/churches (music-genre preference), theatres/cinemas (video-genre preference), museums/galleries (image-genre preference), and places of worship or historic/cultural sites (subject preference inferred from podcasts). Other dependents (6–10, 24–25) cover location inference (GPS, wireless access point, triangulation, manual entry), communication channels (SMS, email, pager, fax, phone call), and retrieving media info from server storage.

Litigation posture (important context)

• District court: Wildseed Mobile LLC v. Google LLC et al., No. 3:22-cv-04928 (N.D. Cal.; originally 6:22-cv-00357, W.D. Tex.). The N.D. Cal. court (Judge Orrick) held the '960 patent (with the '021 and '040 family patents) invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea — treating '960 claim 1 as representative. An earlier W.D. Tex. case (6:21-cv-01245) was voluntarily dismissed.
• PTAB IPR: In IPR2023-00246 (Google LLC and YouTube LLC v. Wildseed Mobile LLC), the Board's Final Written Decision (May 29, 2024) found all challenged claims 1–25 of the '960 patent unpatentable (obviousness). An Inter Partes Review Certificate issued August 19, 2024.

CAFC 2026 dockets — direct result for 9141960

My searches found no Federal Circuit appeal in 2026 specifically involving patent 9141960. The 2026 Federal Circuit decisions I located involving the same parties concern different patents in the same portfolio, not the '960 patent:

• Google LLC v. Wildseed Mobile, LLC, No. 2024-2178 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 13, 2026, nonprecedential) — IPR2023-00247, U.S. Patent 10,869,169; vacated and remanded on claim 15 only.
• Wildseed Mobile, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2024-1846 (Fed. Cir., Apr. 30, 2026, nonprecedential) — IPR2023-00248, U.S. Patent 7,376,414; affirmed.

Caveat on uncertainty: A § 319 appeal of the '960 IPR (IPR2023-00246) would have been due within 63 days of the May 29, 2024 Final Written Decision (i.e., by roughly late July 2024); I did not find such an appeal in my searches, which may mean none was filed or that it was not surfaced by my queries. I cannot state with certainty that no CAFC proceeding exists for 9141960; I can only report that my targeted searches of 2026 CAFC dockets returned no case specific to this patent number.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 9,141,960 through multiple searches.

I have initial results. Let me dig deeper into the specific cases identified.

I now have a good picture of the core cases. Let me verify the current status of the N.D. Cal. case and check for any Federal Circuit appeals of the IPR involving the '960 patent.

Based on my research, here is the known litigation involving US Patent 9,141,960 (the "'960 patent," titled "Venue and event recommendations for a user of a portable media player device," owned by Wildseed Mobile LLC, formerly Varia Holdings LLC). Note that the W.D. Tex. and N.D. Cal. civil actions are the same dispute that was re-filed and then transferred.

District Court Litigation

1. Wildseed Mobile LLC v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:21-cv-01245 (W.D. Tex.)

• Plaintiff: Wildseed Mobile LLC (patent owner/assignee of the '960 patent)
• Defendants: Google LLC; YouTube, LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco Division; Judge Alan D. Albright)
• Case number: 6:21-cv-01245
• Filing date: December 1, 2021
• Outcome/status: Voluntarily dismissed on April 4, 2022 (per Wildseed's own PTAB mandatory notices; no merits decision). The case was re-filed the same day as case 6:22-cv-00357 below.

2. Wildseed Mobile LLC v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:22-cv-00357 (W.D. Tex.)

• Plaintiff: Wildseed Mobile LLC
• Defendants: Google LLC; YouTube, LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Case number: 6:22-cv-00357
• Filing date: April 4, 2022
• Outcome/status: Transferred by stipulation to the Northern District of California in August 2022; became Case No. 3:22-cv-04928 (N.D. Cal.). The W.D. Tex. docket is closed.

3. Wildseed Mobile LLC v. Google LLC et al., No. 3:22-cv-04928 (N.D. Cal.)

• Plaintiff: Wildseed Mobile LLC
• Defendants: Google LLC; YouTube, LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge William H. Orrick)
• Case number: 3:22-cv-04928 (docketed N.D. Cal. August 29, 2022, after transfer)
• Filing date: Originally filed April 4, 2022 (W.D. Tex.); transferred/docketed in N.D. Cal. August 29, 2022
• Patents asserted: '960, 10,251,021, 10,959,040, 10,869,169, and 7,376,414
• Outcome/status: On June 7, 2023, Judge Orrick granted defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 110), holding the '960, '021, and '040 patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea with no inventive concept. Counts II, III, and IV of the First Amended Complaint (covering the '960 patent, among others) were dismissed with prejudice. (The § 101 ruling treated Claim 1 of the '960 patent as representative.) This is a final, merits-based invalidity ruling against the '960 patent.

PTAB / Inter Partes Review

4. Google LLC v. Wildseed Mobile, LLC, IPR2023-00246 (PTAB)

• Petitioner: Google LLC (Google Patents legal-event records also list "YouTube, LLC" as opponent)
• Patent Owner: Wildseed Mobile LLC
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board
• Case number: IPR2023-00246
• Filing date: November 30, 2022 (petition); institution granted (Paper 10)
• Outcome/status: Final Written Decision (Paper 34) issued May 29, 2024, determining all challenged claims of the '960 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) (obviousness). The decision drew a rare partial dissent (noted by Fenwick). An Inter Partes Review Certificate was issued August 19, 2024, canceling the challenged claims. I found no record of a Federal Circuit appeal specifically of IPR2023-00246 (the Federal Circuit appeals in Google v. Wildseed, Nos. 24-1846 and 24-2178, concern different patents — the '414 and '169 patents — not the '960 patent).

Summary

• The '960 patent was asserted by Wildseed Mobile LLC against Google LLC and YouTube, LLC in two related civil actions (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-01245, voluntarily dismissed April 4, 2022; and W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-00357 → N.D. Cal. 3:22-cv-04928).
• The N.D. Cal. case ended in a § 101 invalidity judgment with prejudice (June 7, 2023) against the '960 patent.
• In parallel, Google's IPR2023-00246 resulted in a Final Written Decision (May 29, 2024) finding all challenged claims unpatentable, with an IPR certificate issued August 19, 2024.
• Although the USPTO assignment records still show the patent's legal status as "Active," its claims have been cancelled in IPR and held invalid under § 101 in district court.

Sources: PTAB Patent Owner Mandatory Notices (DocketAlarm, IPR2023-00246); Stanford NPE Litigation Database (patent/9141960); CourtListener/Justia (N.D. Cal. Dkt. 110, June 7, 2023 Order); DocketAlarm docket search for patent:(9141960); Fenwick "What's Trending" (June 5, 2024); Google Patents legal-events record for US9141960B2.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings on US 9141960. The patent's own legal-events history flags IPR2023-00246 (Google LLC and YouTube, LLC as opponents) with an IPR certificate issued 2024-08-19, so let me verify that and look for anything else.

Key facts are emerging: IPR2023-00246 (Google/YouTube v. Wildseed Mobile) — all 25 claims challenged, institution granted 2023-06-01, and a Final Written Decision on 2024-05-29 finding all challenged claims unpatentable. Let me dig into the grounds, the FWD details, and any Federal Circuit appeal.

The FWD in IPR2023-00246 found all 25 challenged claims unpatentable. The CAFC cases I found (24-2178, 24-1846) relate to sibling patents in the same family (10,869,169 and 7,376,414), not the '960. Let me check whether the '960 FWD was appealed, and pull the specific prior-art grounds.

Proceedings overview

Web search confirms one AIA trial proceeding on US 9141960 — IPR2023-00246, Google LLC & YouTube, LLC v. Wildseed Mobile LLC — which the structured ODP block does not yet reflect (flag: the ODP "no PTAB activity on file" default is stale; the patent's own USPTO legal-events history and PTAB records confirm this IPR, which resulted in a Final Written Decision and an IPR certificate). Status breakdown: 0 active, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied, 1 with all claims invalidated (claims 1–25 canceled), 0 sustained. Bottom line for a defendant: every claim of the '960 patent (1–25) has been canceled by an IPR certificate issued 2024-08-19 — the patent is claimless and unenforceable; if a demand letter cites 9141960, the asserting party has no case.

IPR2023-00246 — Google LLC, YouTube, LLC v. Wildseed Mobile LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-11-30 (petition date; IPR certificate confirms "TRIAL NO. IPR2023-00246, NOV. 30, 2022")
• Status: Final Written Decision — all challenged claims unpatentable; IPR certificate issued 2024-08-19 (plain English: trial over, every claim canceled)
• Judge panel: Michael T. Cygan (author of the FWD), Karl D. Easthom, Terrence W. McMillin
• Petition grounds: Petition challenged all 25 claims (1–25) of the '960 patent. The specific prior-art references and § 102/§ 103 combination are set out in the petition (Paper 1) and institution decision (Paper 10); I could not independently confirm the exact reference list from the search results available, so I won't name art I can't verify — it is on the public record at PTAB E2E.
• Institution decision: Granted, 2023-06-01 (Paper 10, "Institution Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review," 35 U.S.C. § 314), with a concurrent scheduling order (Paper 11). The panel instituted on the petition's grounds against all claims.
• Final Written Decision: Paper 34, dated 2024-05-29 — captioned as a "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). That is a full sweep: independent claims 1, 11, 16, and 21 and all dependent claims (2–10, 12–15, 17–20, 22–25) were held unpatentable. Because every claim was challenged and every claim fell, there are no surviving claims — the IPR certificate (issued 2024-08-19, per the certificate's own language: "INTER PARTES REVIEW CERTIFICATE FOR PATENT 9,141,960 … ISSUED AUG. 19, 2024") cancels claims 1–25 of the patent. I don't have the FWD's full reasoning text in hand, so I won't quote the panel's analysis verbatim beyond the document caption above.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The case ran to a merits decision — oral hearing transcript filed 2024-03-20 (Paper 33), FWD 2024-05-29.
• Appeal: I found no Federal Circuit appeal of IPR2023-00246 in the search results. Note carefully: the CAFC appeals that surfaced — No. 24-2178 (decided 2026-02-13, vacate-and-remand on claim 15) and No. 24-1846 (decided 2026-04-30, affirmed) — arise from sibling IPRs on other Wildseed family patents (IPR2023-00247 on the '169 patent, and an IPR on the '414 patent), not from the '960 IPR. Absence of a '960 appeal is consistent with a total-loss FWD (no surviving claim for Wildseed to defend), but I can't rule out a late filing with certainty.
• Defensive value: Maximum possible. All 25 claims are canceled via the 2024-08-19 IPR certificate. There is no claim left to infringe; any infringement theory built on 9141960 — including the pending district-court litigation against Google — is dead on the merits.

Strategic summary

Claim status: CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. Every claim of 9141960 — 1–25, including all four independent claims (1, 11, 16, 21) — was challenged in IPR2023-00246, held unpatentable in the 2024-05-29 FWD, and formally CANCELED by the IPR certificate issued 2024-08-19. There are no SUSTAINED and no UNTESTED claims in this patent. The patent's "Active" legal status on the register is a formality (maintenance fees paid through year 8 in 2023); substantively it is a claimless shell.

Estoppel landscape. For Google/YouTube and their privies, § 315(e)(2) bars re-litigating any ground raised or reasonably available in IPR2023-00246 — but that is moot for the '960 patent because the claims no longer exist. For a new defendant facing assertion of 9141960, estoppel is also irrelevant: the correct move is simply to invoke the IPR certificate and FWD, which cancel every claim with patent-office effect. (Estoppel does matter across the family: the continuation patents 10,251,021 (active, expiring 2028-11-16) and 10,959,040 (expired-fee-related) claim the same priority date, and Google's coordinated IPR campaign against the family means grounds Google already used are barred against it — but a fresh defendant evaluating those continuations should run its own § 102/§ 103 search.)

Pattern signals. This is a coordinated, family-wide takedown: Wildseed's own mandatory notices (Paper 5, filed 2022-12-23) state Google filed IPRs not just on the '960 but also on 10,251,021, 10,959,040, 10,869,169, and 7,376,414 — all tied to the same WDTX/NDCA litigation (6:21-cv-01245 WDTX, voluntarily dismissed 2022-04-04; 6:22-cv-00357 WDTX, transferred to 3:22-cv-04928 N.D. Cal., filed 2022-08-29). The patent owner (Wildseed Mobile LLC, the assignee since 2021-08-19, with LIT-US CHISUM 21-A, LLC holding a security interest) did not settle and litigated to a full FWD — and lost everything on the '960. Note that Unified Patents appears in the public records only as a litigation-data source, not as the petitioner; the actual petitioners are Google LLC and YouTube, LLC.

Recommended next steps

• You are a defendant and the claims are invalidated — lean on the record directly. The FWD is IPR2023-00246, Paper No. 34 (P.T.A.B. May 29, 2024), "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a); the operative cancellation is the Inter Partes Review Certificate for Patent 9,141,960, issued 2024-08-19 (recorded on the patent's file 2024-08-27). Use those two documents to move to dismiss / for judgment on the pleadings, and if the patent is asserted against you, cite the certificate's cancellation of claims 1–25. Public sources: Unified Patents PTAB case page, DocketAlarm patent docket search, Patexia case summary, and the USPTO PTAB E2E portal for Papers 1, 10, and 34.
• No active proceedings pending — the IPR trial is fully concluded, so there are no institution-decision deadlines, oral-hearing dates, or FWD deadlines to calendar. The only forward-looking item is any appeal of the FWD (none located as of this analysis).
• Flag the data discrepancy: the USPTO ODP ingest showing "no AIA trial proceedings" is behind the actual record — IPR2023-00246 appears in the patent's own legal-events history ("AIA TRIAL PROCEEDING FILED … TRIAL NO: IPR2023-00246," opponent Google LLC and YouTube, LLC, effective 2022-11-30) and in third-party PTAB dockets. If you're relying on the ODP feed for diligence, refresh it before concluding the patent is untouched.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 9141960, starting with the USPTO assignment records and then cross-referencing the parties.

The initial searches returned nothing. Let me try broader queries.

Good progress. Now let me dig into the parties: Varia Holdings (original owner), Wildseed Mobile (current assignee), and LIT-US Chisum (security interest holder).

I have enough verified material to reconstruct the chain. Note up front: I could not retrieve the attorney-correspondent names from the USPTO Assignment Center records via the tools available (search results returned no correspondent data), so I will not fabricate them — I flag that field as a verification gap and cite the reel/frame records that Google Patents' legal-events feed mirrors from USPTO.

Inventors

• Evan Feldman — assigned his interest to Varia Mobil LLC (Seattle, WA) per reel 021137/0738 (recorded 2008-06-23). Employer at filing not independently verifiable; the assignment indicates an inventor-to-employer transfer into the Varia entity that filed the application.
• Jonathan Nelson — same assignment, reel 021137/0738; same caveat.

Unusual pattern check: both inventors assigned to Varia Mobil LLC the day the utility application was filed (2008-06-23), and Varia Mobil LLC changed its name to Varia Holdings LLC effective 2008-06-24 (reel 021316/0437) — i.e., the filing entity and the assignee were the same company under two names. The parent operating business (Varia Mobil, maker of the ibiza WiFi/Rhapsody player) was acquired by RealNetworks per press coverage around this period, but I could not verify the inventors' post-filing departures; mark that as unverified.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: Varia Holdings LLC (the renamed Varia Mobil LLC — the change of name, reel 021316/0437, was effective 2008-06-24, one day after filing).
• Line of business: mobile/Linux software and the "ibiza" WiFi MP3 player (Rhapsody-compatible), based in Seattle, WA.
• Product embodying the claims? No evidence found. The claims cover server-side venue/event recommendations pushed to a portable media player; I found no indication the ibiza shipped that feature, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database treats the patents Wildseed now asserts as "Acquired patents."
• Current status: The operating business was acquired by RealNetworks (press coverage, undated snippet); Varia Holdings LLC persisted as a patent-holding entity until it transferred the '960 patent to Wildseed Mobile LLC on 2021-08-19 (reel 057228/0772).

Assignment timeline

All reel/frame entries below are taken from the USPTO-derived legal-events feed on Google Patents; correspondent names were not retrievable from the sources available to me — verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search: 9141960). No entry below is invented.

• 2008-06-23 (executed) / recorded 2008-06-23 — Reel 021137/0738

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Evan Feldman; Jonathan Nelson
  • Assignee: Varia Mobil LLC (Washington)
  • Correspondent: not available from sources consulted — check USPTO Assignment Center
  • Context: Standard inventors-to-employer assignment on filing date.

• 2008-06-24 (effective) / recorded 2008-07-31 — Reel 021316/0437

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Varia Mobil LLC
  • Assignee: Varia Holdings LLC (Washington)
  • Correspondent: not available
  • Context: Name change only; same entity renamed one day after filing.

• 2008-07-02 (effective) / recorded 2008-07-31 — Reel 021316/0442

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Varia Holdings LLC
  • Assignee: Varia LLC (Washington)
  • Correspondent: not available
  • Context: Internal reorg — IP moved from the holding entity to the operating entity.

• 2009-12-29 (effective) / recorded 2010-02-15 — Reel 023928/0756

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Varia LLC
  • Assignee: Varia Holdings LLC (New York)
  • Correspondent: not available
  • Context: Internal reorg reversed — IP returned to Varia Holdings LLC, which held it through grant (2015-09-22).

• 2021-08-19 (executed/effective) / recorded 2021-08-19 — Reel 057228/0772

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Varia Holdings LLC
  • Assignee: Wildseed Mobile LLC (New York)
  • Correspondent: not available
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter — ~13 years after filing, the patent leaves the Varia family and lands with the entity that sued Google/YouTube ~3.5 months later.

• 2020-09-17 (effective per record) / recorded 2021-09-20 — Reel 057535/0783

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Wildseed Mobile LLC
  • Assignee: LIT-US CHISUM 21-A, LLC (New York)
  • Correspondent: not available
  • Context: Litigation-financing security interest taken by the LIT-US Chisum entity family (sibling entity LIT-US CHISUM 22-B has been linked to NPE campaigns by IPWatchdog), recorded one month after the acquisition and ~10 weeks before the first suit.

No further recorded assignments appear in the legal-events feed. The chain terminates at Wildseed Mobile LLC (owner) with a security interest in favor of LIT-US CHISUM 21-A, LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9141960
    2008 : Filed by Varia Mobil LLC
         : Name change to Varia Holdings
         : Transferred to Varia LLC
    2010 : Returned to Varia Holdings
    2015 : Patent issued
    2021 : Sold to Wildseed Mobile LLC
         : Security interest to LIT-US Chisum 21-A
         : First suit filed vs Google
    2022 : Google files IPR
    2024 : IPR invalidates all claims

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. Reel 057228/0772 (2021-08-19) moved the patent from Varia Holdings LLC (the dormant IP residue of an operating company whose business was acquired) to Wildseed Mobile LLC, a New York LLC that, per the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, is classified as a Non-Practicing Entity asserting "Acquired patents" for this patent. No products in commerce identified. (I could not independently confirm a registered-agent address.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9141960) lists Wildseed Mobile LLC as the NPE asserter of '960 in Wildseed Mobile LLC v. Google LLC et al. (6:21-cv-01245 WDTX, filed 2021-12-01; 6:22-cv-00357 WDTX filed 2022-04-04, transferred to 3:22-cv-04928 N.D. Cal.). The security-interest holder LIT-US CHISUM 21-A LLC sits in a family flagged in NPE coverage (IPWatchdog ties LIT-US CHISUM 22-B to the Entangled Media LLC campaign).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not assessable. The correspondent-of-record data was not retrievable from the sources available to me (USPTO Assignment Center search required; my searches returned no correspondent names for these reel/frames). I will not speculate. This is the one material gap in this analysis.

4. Cascading transfers — present, in the 2021 leg. The 2008–2010 transfers (reels 021316/0437, 021316/0442, 023928/0756) are an internal reorg/name change, not a chained-LLC fire sale. But the 2021 leg is a tight sequence: Varia Holdings → Wildseed Mobile on 2021-08-19 (reel 057228/0772), then a security interest to LIT-US CHISUM 21-A recorded 2021-09-20 (reel 057535/0783) — 32 days apart — immediately followed by suit.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. Assignment to Wildseed Mobile recorded 2021-08-19 (reel 057228/0772); first infringement suit naming the '960 patent filed 2021-12-01 (6:21-cv-01245 WDTX) — about 3.5 months, inside the 6-month window. The security interest (reel 057535/0783) was recorded ~2.5 months pre-suit. The chain was arranged immediately before assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceedings identified for Varia or Wildseed; Varia's operating assets went to RealNetworks via acquisition per press coverage, and the patents stayed with Varia Holdings LLC rather than being sold in a bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — not present / unclear. No evidence that a going-concern operating company is using Wildseed to sue its competitors. The pattern is a straight purchase of legacy patents from a defunct/acquired operating company's holding entity — monetization of orphaned IP, not privateering for a live principal.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends at Wildseed Mobile LLC (an asserting NPE) with a security interest to LIT-US CHISUM 21-A LLC. No RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN involvement.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two-plus strong signals drive this: (1) the current owner, Wildseed Mobile LLC, is identified by the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as a non-practicing entity asserting "acquired patents" against Google/YouTube on this exact patent; and (2) the transfer-to-asserter timing — assignment recorded 2021-08-19 (reel 057228/0772) followed by a litigation-funding security interest to LIT-US CHISUM 21-A (reel 057535/0783, recorded 2021-09-20) and the first infringement suit on 2021-12-01 — shows the chain was assembled to enable assertion. The pattern is confirmed by the outcome: Google's IPR2023-00246 resulted in a Final Written Decision (2024-05-29) finding all challenged claims unpatentable, with an IPR certificate issued 2024-08-19, consistent with monetization-only ownership by an entity that ships no products.

Verification: search patent 9141960 at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (reels 021137/0738, 021316/0437, 021316/0442, 023928/0756, 057228/0772, 057535/0783) — the correspondent names on those recordations remain the one datum to pull from the primary source.

I'll research US patent 9141960 and its cited prior art references. Let me start by searching for the patent itself and its citations.

I have good detail on the two references cited on the face of US9141960. Let me also research the family-cited references (listed under "Family Cites Families" in the patent record) and the IPR proceeding to give a complete prior-art picture.

I have enough verified information to complete the analysis. Here is my report.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 9,141,960 B2

1. Patent Identification

US9141960B2 — "Venue and event recommendations for a user of a portable media player device"

• Inventors: Evan Feldman, Jonathan Nelson
• Assignee: Varia Holdings LLC (now Wildseed Mobile LLC)
• Appl. No. 12/144,532, filed June 23, 2008; provisional priority 60/945,677 (June 22, 2007)
• Granted: September 22, 2015; 25 claims
• Verified via Google Patents / USPTO-linked record and the patent PDF at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d8/ed/ef/8e624e73c8b251/US9141960.pdf

The patent's own "References Cited" section lists two examiner-cited references (marked * cited by examiner):

1. US20040023666A1 (Moon et al., "Location based service provider")
2. US20070155307A1 (Ng et al., "Media data transfer," Apple Computer, Inc.)

The record also shows nine "Family Cites Families" references — prior art cited during prosecution of family members (continuations US10251021B2 / US10959040B2), not on the face of the '960 patent. I cover both groups below.

Note on statutory framework: The '960 patent claims priority to June 22, 2007, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 applies. "Potentially anticipates" below means the reference plausibly discloses all elements of the recited claim on its face; this is an analytical assessment, not a legal conclusion, and any real § 102 case would also require that the reference qualify as prior art (e.g., § 102(a), (b), or (e)) and that no claim element is missing.

2. Examiner-Cited References (on the face of US9141960)

2.1 US20040023666A1 — "Location based service provider"

• Full citation: Moon, George Christopher; Li, Xiang; Petronis, Scott; Berrill, Arthur R.; Tweedie, Matthew W.; Dove, John L.; Dewald, Edward T. — US Patent Application Publication US 2004/0023666 A1, published February 5, 2004; application 10/392,370 filed March 19, 2003; earliest priority date March 19, 2002 (per Google Patents).
• Brief description: An extensible, XML-based platform of location-enabled services for wireless carriers. Mobile-device location is integrated with location-sensitive data (maps, demographics, businesses, consumers) to provide richer services, including route-to-destination, geocoding, maps, event-matching services, user-profile services, and location-aware services. Disclosed features include "an ordered list of events," "event matching service," "personal preference information," "location aware service," and location determination via base-station signals, GPS signals, or user input.
• Prior-art status: Published Feb. 5, 2004 — well before both the June 22, 2007 invention date (§ 102(a)) and the one-year statutory bar date of June 23, 2007 relative to the June 23, 2008 filing (§ 102(b)).
• Claims potentially anticipated:
  • Claims 6, 7, 24 (server inferring/determining the current location from the device, from an access point, or via signal triangulation): Moon discloses GPS, base-station signal triangulation, and access-point-derived location — a strong mapping.
  • Claim 9 (communication via SMS/email/pager/fax/call): Moon's service architecture contemplates carrier messaging; plausible but less explicit.
  • Claim 1 / 21 (server-side recommendation framework): Moon discloses location-based event matching against user profile/preference data, but it does not disclose inferring entertainment preferences from media stored on or accessed using a portable media player device. That missing element weakens a pure § 102 anticipation argument for claim 1 and its server counterpart.
• Assessment: Best used as a secondary reference (likely § 103) or for the location-inference dependent claims (6, 7, 24).

2.2 US20070155307A1 — "Media data transfer" (Apple)

• Full citation: Ng, Stanley C.; Hodge, Andrew Bert; Fadell, Anthony M.; Robbin, Jeffrey L.; Borchers, Robert Edward; Bell, Chris; Cue, Eddy — US Patent Application Publication US 2007/0155307 A1, published July 5, 2007; application 11/514,806 filed September 1, 2006; provisional priority 60/756,122 (Jan. 3, 2006) and 60/805,328 (June 20, 2006). Later granted as US 8,706,159 B2 (Apr. 22, 2014); related to US 7,831,199 B2 ("Media data exchange, transfer or delivery for portable electronic devices," Ng et al., filed Sep. 1, 2006).
• Brief description: A local server at a particular location (an establishment/venue) wirelessly discovers portable electronic devices in its vicinity, retrieves stored data from the portable device, determines what data/content to provide based on the retrieved stored data, and delivers customized data to the device over a local wireless network. Customization is based on "location, characteristics, interests, preferences and/or requests of the users of the mobile devices." Embodiments include delivering data that "pertains to the location," informing devices of available broadcasts/channels at the establishment, and pushing localized content.
• Prior-art status: Though published July 5, 2007 (after the '960 provisional priority date of June 22, 2007), its effective filing date (Jan. 3, 2006) precedes it, making it prior art under § 102(e) (and potentially § 102(a) if invention was not complete before publication).
• Claims potentially anticipated:
  • Claim 1 (server retrieves media/info about media stored on or accessed using a portable media player device; infers preferences; accesses location-proximal sources; identifies content of interest; communicates): Apple's "retrieving stored data from the portable electronic device" + "determining data to be provided based on the retrieved stored data" + "customization based on ... interests, preferences" + location-based delivery maps closely onto the server-side flow. The main gap is the specific "venue or event recommendation" object — Apple's delivered data is venue-local content/broadcasts rather than a recommendation of a separate venue/event.
  • Claims 8, 11, 16, 21 (device-side and server-side apparatus/method counterparts) — same strengths/gaps as claim 1.
  • Claims 6, 7, 24 (location determination): Apple discloses proximity detection at a venue/access point.
• Assessment: The most relevant of the two face citations; strongest for the "retrieve device-stored media → infer preferences → deliver location-based customized data" combination, though the "recommendation of a venue/event" limitation is a plausible differentiator.

3. Family-Cited References (cited in family prosecution, not on the face of '960)

3.1 US7937380B2 — "System and method for recommended events" (Yahoo!)

• Full citation: Spiegelman, Michael; White, William MacDonald — US 7,937,380 B2, filed December 22, 2006 (Appl. 11/615,544), published as US 2008/0154696 A1 on June 26, 2008, granted May 3, 2011; assigned to Yahoo! Inc.
• Brief description: Systems/methods for selecting and recommending events to a consumer of media content based on the consumer's interests, consumption history, and preferences. A media server stores a consumer profile with a consumer location and consumption history of media content items requested/rendered; an event database stores events each having an event location, event description, and event data associating the event with media content items (e.g., songs) and artists. When the consumer accesses a media content item, the system selects an upcoming event based on the consumer's location and interest data and transmits a notification of the event to the consumer. Event categories include music concerts, plays, dog shows, etc.
• Prior-art status: Effective filing date December 22, 2006 — before the '960 priority date of June 22, 2007 — so prior art under § 102(e) (published June 26, 2008, also § 102(a) if the invention date is after publication, though the 2006 filing makes (e) the cleanest basis).
• Claims potentially anticipated: This is arguably the single strongest family-cited reference:
  • Claim 1 (server retrieves media/info about media; infers preferences; accesses venue/event sources; identifies event based on preferences + location; generates recommendation; communicates): Yahoo!'s consumption-history-based interest data + consumer location + event database + event selection + notification maps element-for-element onto claim 1.
  • Claims 8, 11, 16, 21 (communication to the user/device; device-side and server-side counterparts).
  • Claims 12–13 / 17–18 / 22 (music events/venues matched to music genre preference; theatrical/cinematography events matched to video genre preference): Yahoo! explicitly discloses music-concert events associated with artists/songs and event categories such as plays, supporting these dependent claims.
• Assessment: Highest-value family reference; likely the primary § 102 candidate for claim 1 if the "portable media player device" and "proximal" limitations are read as met by Yahoo!'s consumer device + location-in-profile architecture.

3.2 US7218938B1 — "Methods and apparatus to analyze and present location information" (Lau et al.)

• Full citation: Lau, Chung; Tong, Peter P.; Thomas, C. Douglass — US 7,218,938 B1, application 10/397,472 filed March 26, 2003 (earliest priority Apr. 24, 2002), granted May 15, 2007.
• Brief description: Location-aware mobile device techniques for analyzing and presenting location information — converting GPS coordinates into human-readable location labels, consolidating location data, and presenting location relative to a reference location (e.g., identifying that a device is in a bookstore versus a theatre).
• Prior-art status: Priority Apr. 24, 2002 / published May 15, 2007 — prior art under § 102(a)/(b)/(e).
• Claims potentially anticipated: Location-inference claims 6, 7, 24 (device-sourced location, GPS-based current-location inference). Does not disclose media-preference-based venue/event recommendations, so not a claim-1 candidate.

3.3 US8108378B2 — "Podcast search engine" (Yahoo!)

• Full citation: US 8,108,378 B2, filed September 30, 2005 (earliest priority 2005-09-30), granted January 31, 2012; assigned to Yahoo! Inc.
• Brief description: Search engine technology for podcast media — indexing, searching, and analyzing podcast metadata/subject matter.
• Prior-art status: 2005 priority — § 102(e) prior art.
• Claims potentially anticipated: Podcast/subject-preference claims 5, 15, 20, 23 (subject preference inferred from podcast media stored on/accessed via the device) — relevant to the podcast limitation specifically, though it does not itself disclose venue/event recommendation.

3.4 US20090222392A1 — "Dynamic interactive entertainment" (Strands, Inc.)

• Full citation: US 2009/0222392 A1, published September 3, 2009; earliest priority February 10, 2006; applicant Strands, Inc.
• Brief description: Dynamic interactive entertainment systems using user media consumption/behavior to infer entertainment preferences and drive personalized recommendations/interactions.
• Prior-art status: 2006 priority — § 102(e) prior art (published after the '960 filing, so (e) is the operative basis).
• Claims potentially anticipated: Preference-inference portion of claims 1 and 21 (inferring entertainment preferences from media); less clearly the location-proximal venue/event selection.

3.5 US20060123080A1 — "Method and system of collectively setting preferences among a plurality of electronic devices and users" (Motorola)

• Full citation: US 2006/0123080 A1, published June 8, 2006; priority December 3, 2004.
• Brief description: Collectively managing preference settings across multiple electronic devices and users.
• Prior-art status: § 102(a)/(b) prior art.
• Claims potentially anticipated: Marginal; at most the preference-related elements of claims 1, 21 (no location-based venue/event recommendation).

3.6 US20020055926A1 — "Open platform information on universal maps" (Meir Dan)

• Full citation: US 2002/0055926 A1, published May 9, 2002; priority November 6, 2000.
• Brief description: Open-platform mapping system integrating location data with information layers (points of interest, services).
• Prior-art status: § 102(a)/(b).
• Claims potentially anticipated: At most the location-information/access-point aspects of claims 6, 7, 24; no media-preference-based event recommendation.

3.7 US7310532B2 — "Method of automatically updating presence information" (Intel)

• Full citation: US 7,310,532 B2, filed December 5, 2001 (priority), granted December 18, 2007.
• Brief description: Automatically updating presence/location information of users.
• Prior-art status: § 102(a)/(e).
• Claims potentially anticipated: Location-determination aspects of claims 6, 7, 24 only; tangential.

3.8 MXPA04012663A — "Multimedia content delivery through WLAN coverage area" (Thomson Licensing)

• Full citation: MX PA/a/2004/012663 A, published March 23, 2005; priority June 21, 2002.
• Brief description: Delivering multimedia content to portable devices entering a WLAN coverage area — content pushed based on the device's presence in the covered location.
• Prior-art status: Foreign publication — § 102(a)/(b).
• Claims potentially anticipated: Similar to the Apple reference: claims 1, 8, 11, 16, 21 (location-triggered delivery of customized content to a portable device) but without media-preference-based venue/event recommendation.

3.9 WO2007046101A2 — "Method and system for sharing content among mobile devices and purchasing online" (Netbarrage Ltd.)

• Full citation: WO 2007/046101 A2, published April 26, 2007; priority October 19, 2005.
• Brief description: Mobile-device content sharing and online purchasing, including location-aware content exchange.
• Prior-art status: PCT publication — § 102(a)/(e).
• Claims potentially anticipated: Marginal; at most the device-communication elements of claims 8, 11, 16.

4. Priority Ranking of the Most Relevant Prior Art

5. Important Caveats

1. Only two references appear on the face of '960 (US20040023666A1, US20070155307A1). The nine "Family Cites Families" references were cited in the family's prosecution (e.g., child continuations US10251021B2 / US10959040B2) and are not listed on the '960 certificate, so their § 102 applicability to the '960 claims would need to be established independently.
2. Claim 1's distinguishing features — "portable media player device" (expressly defined to exclude laptops/tablets/vehicle-mounted devices), "inferring entertainment preferences based on media stored on or accessed using the device," and "proximal to the current location" — are the points where each reference is most vulnerable. US7937380B2 comes closest to reading on all of them.
3. This patent was litigated and challenged in IPR2023-00246 (Google LLC and YouTube, LLC v. Wildseed Mobile LLC), which resulted in an Inter Partes Review Certificate issued August 19, 2024 (recorded in the legal-events section of the '960 record). I did not locate the Final Written Decision's claim-by-claim outcome in this search, so I cannot state which claims (if any) were held unpatentable; that decision would be the authoritative statement of which prior art (including possibly art beyond the citations above) was deemed most relevant.
4. § 103 obviousness is a separate question. Several references (Moon + Apple, or Yahoo! + Lau) may combine more devastatingly than any single reference anticipates, particularly for the location-inference and communication dependent claims.

I'll research the prior art references and the IPR history before constructing the § 103 analysis.

Let me research the remaining prior art references and the IPR decision details.

I have sufficient material from the patent record and the prior-art searches to prepare the § 103 analysis. I'll note at the outset that I could confirm the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00246 (Document No. 34, May 29, 2024) "Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), followed by an inter partes review certificate issued August 19, 2024, but I could not retrieve the FWD's specific evidentiary grounds before the step limit. The combination analysis below is therefore my independent § 103 assessment built on the prior-art section of the patent record.

Obviousness Analysis of US 9141960 B2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Scope of the analysis

US 9141960 B2 ("the '960 patent") claims a server-side method (claims 1–10), a device-side method (claims 11–15), a portable media player device (claims 16–20), and a server (claims 21–25). The common inventive core, expressed in claim 1, is:

retrieving, by a server, media stored on or accessed using a portable media player device (or information about that media); inferring entertainment preferences of the user from that media; accessing sources of venue/event information proximal to the user's current location; identifying a venue/event of interest based on the inferred preferences and location; generating a recommendation; and communicating it to the user.

The dependent claims add genre-specific mappings (music→club/church, video→theatre/cinema, image→museum/gallery, podcast→places of worship/historic sites), location-inference mechanics (device-provided, access-point-provided), delivery channels (SMS, email, pager, fax, voice), and server-side storage of media metadata.

2. Prior-art references available from the patent record

All of the following are pre-AIA prior art against the June 22, 2007 priority date (each either published before that date under § 102(a) or has an effective filing date before it under § 102(e)):

3. Legal framework (Graham / KSR)

Under § 103, a claim is unpatentable if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The Graham factors are: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), obviousness may be shown by the predictable combination of known elements according to known methods, with a demonstrated motivation to combine.

A PHOSITA here is a developer of networked mobile/media systems circa 2007: competent in location determination, server-side personalization, media metadata analysis, and push notification to handheld devices.

4. Primary combination: Moon + Apple '55307 renders claim 1 obvious

4.1 What Moon discloses

Moon's "Location Based Service Provider" is a location-enabled services platform in which mobile device location is integrated with location-sensitive data — maps, demographics, businesses, and events — to deliver richer services to wireless users. Critically, Moon expressly discloses:

• an event matching service (claims 22–29, and the "event matching service" service type);
• a user profile service storing personal preference information;
• presenting sales, promotions, products, services, or events to the user as a sorted list, where the list is sorted based on attribute values matching the user profile or preference (claim 19);
• each event has event attributes, each user profile has profile attributes, weighted and compared to generate a similarity score based on shared attributes (claim 20) — i.e., collaborative/profile-filtering recommendation;
• location identified via user input, base-station location, geocode, GPS, or multiple base-station signals (claim 23);
• messages sent from a mobile client to a server and responses returned to the user (claims 24–26).

Moon therefore discloses: server-side inference of the user's current location; access to venue/event information proximal to that location; matching events to a user profile/preference; generating a recommendation; and communicating it to the mobile device. What Moon does not itself emphasize is deriving the preference profile from the media library of a portable media player.

4.2 What Apple '55307 supplies

Apple's "Media data transfer" discloses a server that retrieves stored data from a portable electronic device and determines data to be provided based on the retrieved stored data. The application states (per the published abstract and claims located in search results):

• "retrieving stored data from the at least one portable electronic device; determining data to be provided from the local server to the at least one portable electronic device based on the retrieved stored data";
• customization "based on location, characteristics, interests, preferences and/or requests of the users of the mobile devices";
• a local server at a venue/establishment wirelessly transmitting data to nearby mobile devices;
• "determining whether the portable electronic device is proximate to the location; identifying data to be delivered to the portable electronic device, wherein at least a portion of the data pertains to the location; and delivering the identified data to the portable electronic device."

Apple thus supplies the two elements Moon underplays: (i) server-side retrieval of media/data stored on the portable media player, and (ii) inferring user interests/preferences from that retrieved data (media files and their metadata).

4.3 Why the combination is obvious

Every element of claim 1 maps to Moon + Apple:

Motivation to combine: A PHOSITA seeking to improve Moon's event-matching service would naturally look to populate its user-preference profile automatically. Apple '55307 teaches exactly that: mining the user's portable media device to infer interests. The two references are in the same field (location-aware delivery of content to mobile users), address complementary halves of the same problem (what the user likes vs. where the user is), and their combination yields a predictable result: events near the user, matched to preferences derived from the media on the user's own player. No inventive step is required — it is the "simple substitution of one known element for another" or the "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" described in KSR.

Reasonable expectation of success: High. Both references use conventional server/client architectures, standard location inputs (GPS, base stations, access points), and standard profile matching. The claim adds no new technical mechanism beyond what each reference already practices.

5. Alternative/stronger combination: Yahoo '7380 alone or with Apple/Moon

5.1 Yahoo '7380 is nearly a picture claim of claim 1

Yahoo's "System and method for recommended events" (filed December 22, 2006 — six months before the '960 provisional) discloses, per the published application and granted patent:

• a consumer profile including a consumer location and consumption information identifying media content items requested by/rendered to the consumer (i.e., media accessed via a media player on the consumer device);
• a second datastore of events, each event having an event location and event data associating the event with one or more media content items;
• selecting an upcoming event based at least in part on the media content items, the event location, the consumer location, and the event description;
• transmitting a notification of the event to the consumer in response to the consumer's interaction with the media system;
• a computer-readable medium method that "retriev[es] a consumer profile containing consumer information including a consumer location and a consumption history of at least one media content item previously rendered by the media player" and "select[s] a first event based on consumer location and the consumption history."

This is the same invention as claim 1: infer interest from media consumed/accessed via a media player, combine with the consumer's location and a venue/event database, select an event, and notify the user. The only arguable textual difference is that claim 1 recites the server retrieving media "stored on or accessed using a portable media player device" while Yahoo tracks consumption history in a server-side profile — but Yahoo's disclosure of "consumption history of at least one media content item previously rendered by the media player" and its architecture (media server 118, consumer device 106 with media player 114) plainly teaches server-side use of device media-consumption data. Any residual gap (e.g., the specific phrase "portable media player device") is filled by Apple '55307's portable device data retrieval, making Yahoo + Apple a belt-and-suspenders combination.

5.2 Motivation to combine Yahoo with Apple (or Moon)

Yahoo '7380 itself targets "media players" generally; the '960 specification's own definition of "portable media player device" (iPod, Zune, ibiza Rhapsody) is precisely the class of device Apple '55307 discusses ("portable electronic device," media players). A PHOSITA combining Yahoo's event-recommendation engine with Apple's portable-device data retrieval would have a reasonable expectation of success because both are server-driven, network-based media systems, and the only modification is where the media-consumption signal originates (server-side profile vs. device-side library). Similarly, Moon supplies the location-inference and event-data-source components Yahoo already contemplates, making Yahoo + Moon an obvious aggregation of two known recommendation/location systems.

6. Dependent claims

Claims 2–5 (genre-specific venues/events)

• Claim 2 (club/church; music genre): Moon's event matching uses profile attributes; Yahoo's event database associates events with media and categories (e.g., "music concert"). Apple '55307 discloses determining content based on retrieved device data including user preferences. Selecting a club or church playing a user's inferred music genre is an obvious application of profile-matching that both Moon (weighted attribute similarity) and Yahoo (event–media association) teach. Strands '2392 reinforces this: it recommends live entertainment events from analysis of a user's music library.
• Claim 3 (theatre/cinema; video genre): Yahoo's event data expressly includes categories such as plays and movies and media files including video; associating a video-genre preference with a nearby theatre/cinema is the identical matching operation.
• Claim 4 (museum/gallery; image genre): Yahoo's event data includes "dog show" and other categories; Moon's profile attributes cover any describable attribute. Extending media-based preference inference to image media is disclosed by Apple's "characteristics, interests, preferences" customization and by the '960's own acknowledgment that metadata (title, type, artist, subject matter) is analyzed — all routine.
• Claim 5 (place of worship / historic site; podcast subject preference): Yahoo '8108378 (podcast search engine) teaches server-side podcast metadata, tagging, and recommendation; combining podcast-subject inference (Apple-style retrieval of device data, or Yahoo '8108378's podcast metadata) with Moon's location-aware event/venue services makes a worship/historic-site recommendation obvious. These are straightforward extensions of the same match-interest-to-location paradigm.

Claims 6–7 (location inference)

Moon expressly discloses location from GPS, base-station triangulation, user input, and access points (claim 23), and the '960's block 204 lists the same modalities. Apple '55307 discloses determining whether a device is proximate to a location. These claims add nothing beyond Moon's own teachings.

Claim 8 (transmit to the device)

Expressly disclosed by Apple '55307 (delivering data to the portable electronic device over the local wireless network) and Yahoo '7380 (transmitting a notification to the consumer device).

Claim 9 (SMS/email/pager/fax/call)

Yahoo '7380's network description ("a cellular phone network, a simple text messaging network, a paging network") teaches SMS/paging delivery; Moon's message-based interface teaches server→client communication. Using standard messaging channels to deliver a notification is a routine design choice.

Claim 10 (server-side retrieval from storage)

Yahoo '7380 maintains the consumer profile (consumption history) server-side; Apple '55307 teaches retrieving device data. Server-side storage of media metadata was standard practice, as the '960 itself admits ("as a result of previous syncing ... or previous browsing").

Claims 11–15 (device-side method) and 16–20 (portable media player device)

These claims are the mirror image of claims 1–5: the device provides its location to the server and receives the recommendation. Apple '55307 expressly discloses the device-side acts (device is discovered, device data retrieved, data delivered to the device); Moon discloses the mobile client sending location and receiving event results. There is no additional inventive content.

Claims 21–25 (server apparatus)

Claims 21–25 merely claim a conventional server (storage medium + processor) programmed to perform the method of claims 1–10. Under Alice/Mayo the underlying method being obvious (or unpatentable), the apparatus claims fall with it; under § 103, a known general-purpose server executing an obvious method is obvious (see, e.g., In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).

7. Secondary considerations

There is no evidence in the record of long-felt need, unexpected results, commercial success, or industry praise that would overcome the strong prima facie case. Indeed, the objective record cuts the other way: the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00246 (Document 34, May 29, 2024) determined all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), and an inter partes review certificate issued August 19, 2024 — a post-grant confirmation by the agency that the claims lack patentable weight over the prior art. (The IPR was instituted against the '960 patent with Google LLC and YouTube, LLC named as opponents in the record; I could not retrieve the FWD's specific reference grounds before my search limit, so the combinations above stand as my independent analysis.)

8. Conclusion

• Moon (US 2004/0023666 A1) + Apple (US 2007/0155307 A1) renders claims 1, 6–10, 11, 16, 21, 24, and 25 obvious: Moon supplies location-aware event/venue matching against a user profile; Apple supplies the missing element of retrieving the user's media from the portable media player and inferring interests from it. The motivation is the predictable improvement of automating profile generation from device-resident media.
• Yahoo (US 7,937,380 B2 / US 2008/0154696 A1), alone or combined with Apple '55307 and/or Moon, renders claim 1 (and its dependent claims 2–10, 11–15, 16–20, 21–25) obvious, because Yahoo discloses the identical server-side combination of media-consumption-based interest data, consumer location, an event database with event–media associations, and notification delivery — with a filing date six months before the '960's earliest priority date.
• Strands (US 2009/0222392 A1) and Yahoo '8108378 (podcast search engine) further support the genre- and podcast-specific dependent claims (2–5, 12–15, 17–20, 22–23).

For a PHOSITA in 2007, combining a location-based event service (Moon), a portable-media-device data-retrieval and preference-inference system (Apple), and a media-consumption-driven event recommender (Yahoo) would have been an obvious exercise of ordinary skill with a high expectation of success — consistent with the PTAB's determination that all challenged claims of US 9141960 are unpatentable.