US 9331489

I'll search for authoritative records on this patent, including any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me check specifically for Federal Circuit 2026 activity and the PTAB proceedings.

Summary of US Patent No. 9,331,489

Sources used: Google Patents full-text record for US9331489B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9331489](/patent/US9331489)/en), the published application US20140252862A1, Justia's patent page (https://patents.justia.com/patent/9331489), and the WDTX claim-construction decision excerpt filed as Exhibit 1010 in PTAB IPR2024-00360.

---

Bibliographic data

⚠️ Date discrepancy to flag: The WDTX claim-construction decision text (Exhibit 1010 in IPR2024-00360) states the '489 patent "issued on December 27, 2016." The Google Patents bibliographic record shows the grant/publication date as 2016-05-03. I cannot resolve this from the records retrieved; the Google Patents record is the more authoritative bibliographic source, but treat the exact issue date with caution.

⚠️ Third-party identification error to flag: Several secondary/press sources (Korean IP-Navi portal; Ramey LLP Spanish-language press releases about the Duracell, Home Depot, and Yotta suits) label US 9,331,488 as titled "Maximizing power production at low sunlight by solar power mini-inverters." Per the authoritative patent records, that title belongs to US 9,331,489; US 9,331,488 is "Enclosure and message system of smart and scalable power inverters." I am not auto-correcting these numbers — just noting the conflict.

---

Abstract

"A method and apparatus is disclosed for maximizing power production for solar power systems when there is low sunlight during sunrise, sunset, clouding, partial shading, and other low irradiance conditions. A multiple-channel solar power Mini-Inverter can work in the low power mode when there is low sunlight, take power from one solar panel to supply DC power to its internal electronic circuits, and also invert the DC power from the remaining connected solar panels to single-phase or three-phase AC power feeding to the electrical grid or powering AC loads. This invention can significantly reduce the required startup and shutdown irradiance and DC power for the solar power inverter, avoid undesirable shutdowns due to partial shading, and allow the inverter to run in power generation mode for a few more hours each day."

Core technical problem solved: The inverter's internal DC power supply needs ≥18 V input to produce 15 V for gate drivers. Under shade/low irradiance, panel voltage collapses (e.g., 30 V → 15 V) as the inverter pulls current, starving the internal supply and forcing shutdown — and a reconnection then triggers the mandatory 5-minute UL-1741/IEEE-1547 wait. The patent's fix: in "low power mode," dedicate one input channel/panel solely to feeding the internal DC supply (no AC generation from that channel), while the remaining m−1 channels keep generating AC. The inventors report each remaining channel can still export AC power at only ~1.5 W DC (14 V, 0.11 A) per panel.

---

Plain-language overview of each independent claim

Claim 1 — Grid-tied multiple-channel DC-to-AC power inverter.
A multi-input inverter with (a) ≥2 DC input ports; (b) one AC output port feeding the electric grid; (c) a DC-DC boost converter per port; (d) a DC power combiner paralleling all boost-converter outputs so currents add; (e) a DC-AC inverter; (f) an internal AC powerline; (g) a load interface circuit that filters high-frequency switching components out of the inverter's AC output; (h) a digital microcontroller handling measurement, per-channel DC power calculation, MPPT per panel, DC-AC inversion, grid synchronization, output current control, powerline communications, and switching/isolation logic — and able to run the inverter in normal or low power mode based on calculated DC input power; (i) a powerline modem (via interface circuitry) for two-way data with the grid side; (j) a line sensing circuit detecting grid phase and zero-crossings; (k) a solid-state switch disconnecting the internal from the external AC powerline during non-generation; and (l) a DC power supply fed from the combiner, with one input channel and its panel dedicated to supplying the internal DC power supply when the microcontroller detects calculated input power below a predetermined value.

Claim 6 — Multiple-channel off-grid "AC Master" DC-to-AC inverter.
Same architecture as claim 1 but (b) the AC output port supplies an AC load, and it adds (h) a load detector measuring the connected load's impedance/monitoring voltage and current; the microcontroller additionally: verifies load impedance against specifications, initially energizes an unpowered AC powerline, continuously delivers AC to let other off-grid inverters on the same line synchronize to it (the "AC Master" function), checks whether the load is too large or too small, and shuts down with an error signal if so. It retains the dedicated-channel/low-power-mode DC supply feature (element l).

Claim 9 — Multiple-channel "regular" off-grid DC-to-AC inverter.
Same as claim 6 except it is the non-master variant: the load detector is replaced by a solid-state switch disconnecting internal from external AC powerline during non-generation, and the line sensing circuit detects phase/zero-crossing of incoming AC on the external powerline. Element (l) again requires the one dedicated channel/panel feeding the internal DC supply when input power falls below the predetermined value.

Claim 10 — Method of supplying DC power to the DC power supply of an m-channel solar inverter.
A three-step method: (a) enter/exit normal or low power mode based on measured input DC power; (b) in low power mode, choose one solar panel per a predetermined condition, stop drawing from it for AC generation, and route its DC to the internal DC power supply; (c) in normal mode, draw from all available panels for AC generation and also supply the DC power supply. (Claim 13 then adds the full hardware apparatus context.)

Claim 14 — m-channel solar power inverter (apparatus, claim-drafted for the low-power-mode concept).
(a) ≥2 DC input channels, each comprising a DC-DC boost converter, measurement circuits, supporting circuits, and cables/connectors to a solar panel; (b) an AC output port for the grid; (c) a DC power combiner joining all boost converter outputs; (d) a digital microcontroller that measures voltage/current to compute per-channel DC input power and runs the inverter in normal or low power mode based on that power; and (e) a DC power supply connected to all input channels via the combiner but configured to take DC power from a dedicated input channel and its panel when calculated input power is below a predetermined value.

Dependent claims (brief): 2, 7, 11, 15 — single- or three-phase output. 3 and 8 — the microcontroller includes Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) controllers for the DC-DC boost converter and MFA optimizers for MPPT (consistent with inventor Cheng's MFA work, e.g., US 7,415,446). 4 — the main program loop steps (measure, run/stop generation, power statistics, diagnostics, unit address, powerline communications, query response). 5 — the power control subroutine logic using the "Channel State" (Normal / DC Supply) and "System Power State" (Normal / Low Power) variables; if any channel is Normal or only one channel is available, set System Power State to Normal and reset the DC Supply channel; otherwise, if System Power State is Normal, set it to Low Power and put the lowest-input-voltage channel into DC Supply mode. 12 and 16 — the inverter feeds a grid or powers an AC load.

---

Notable embodiments / technical details

• The low-power-mode selection criterion in the FIG. 9 flow chart is specifically the channel with the lowest input voltage (Block 322).
• In low power mode the selected boost converter stops switching, letting raw panel DC pass through to the combiner and then the DC supply; 30–45 V open-circuit panel voltage easily sustains >18 V on the internal DC rail.
• Embodiments are described for 4-channel grid-tied (FIGS. 2–3), m-channel grid-tied (FIGS. 4–5), and m-channel off-grid including AC Master and regular variants (FIGS. 6–7).
• Incorporation by reference: US 12/837,162; US 61/442,991; US 61/495,540.

---

Litigation and post-grant activity

District court (from the Google Patents litigation links):

• WDTX (Marshall/Austin area): 6:22-cv-00281 (Cyboenergy v. Aptos Solar Technology LLC, filed alongside US 8,786,133); 6:22-cv-01136-KC (claim construction decision entered 12/20/2023 construing four terms, all appearing in claim 14 of the '489 patent: "DC power combiner…for combining DC output from all DC-DC boost converters"; "constructed to run the power inverter in normal or low power mode based on calculated DC input power"; "configured to take DC power from a dedicated input channel and its connected solar panel"; "microcontroller…arranged to measure input voltage and current to calculate DC input power for each channel"); 1:25-cv-01300.
• N.D. Cal.: 3:21-cv-08534, 5:21-cv-08534, 5:24-cv-08891.
• C.D. Cal.: 2:21-cv-08216.
• Duracell Power Center, LLC sued 12/10/2024 in N.D. Cal. (asserting '488 and '489); Yotta Energy sued 08/13/2025 in WDTX Austin.

PTAB: IPR2024-00360, petitioner Altenergy Power System USA, Inc., appears to involve the '489 patent (the WDTX claim-construction decision was filed as its Exhibit 1010). I did not retrieve the institution decision or final written decision, so the IPR outcome is unknown to me.

---

Federal Circuit — 2026 dockets

Negative finding (with caveat): My searches surfaced no Federal Circuit docket or opinion in 2026 involving US 9,331,489. I did not obtain direct PACER/CAFC docket-system access, so I cannot rule out an appeal that is not indexed in the sources reachable to me. If a CAFC appeal exists, the most likely candidate would be an appeal from IPR2024-00360 or from one of the WDTX/N.D. Cal. cases — but I have no authoritative confirmation of that, and I will not speculate further.

Is a 2026 CAFC appeal plausible? The '489 patent's asserted claim 14 was construed 12/20/2023, and IPR2024-00360 was filed in the 2023–2024 window; a final written decision in 2025 with a 2026 Federal Circuit appeal would be procedurally ordinary — but again, I have no retrieved evidence of such an appeal.

---

Uncertainty statement

• The issue date is reported inconsistently (2016-05-03 in Google Patents vs. "December 27, 2016" in a litigation exhibit).
• The IPR2024-00360 outcome is not known to me.
• No 2026 CAFC docket for this patent was found in my searches; this is a limitation of my search access, not proof of absence.
• I did not independently query the USPTO Patent Center, Patent Trial and Appeal Board API, or CAFC CM/ECF; the above relies on Google Patents, Justia, Unified Patents/Darts-IP litigation metadata surfaced via Google Patents, and litigation press releases, which may lag current docket status.

I'll search for litigation records involving US 9,331,489 across litigation-tracking and court sources.

Scope and method

I searched litigation/patent-docket aggregators and secondary sources reachable to me for docket activity naming US 9,331,489 literally (CyboEnergy's "Maximizing power production at low sunlight by solar power mini-inverters"): Unified Patents‑linked Google Patents litigation feed, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia, Patexia, Studicata, Docket Alarm, IP‑Navi (KIPO), and Ramey LLP (plaintiff's counsel) press releases. I did not have direct PACER or CAFC CM/ECF access. Where a source could not confirm that the '489 (as opposed to a sibling CyboEnergy family patent whose number is adjacent) is in suit, I say so rather than folding it in.

Important: I excluded cases asserting US 9,331,488 ("Enclosure and message system…") and US 8,786,133 ("Smart and scalable power inverters") unless the '489 was also expressly asserted. Several cases involve only those adjacent numbers (e.g., the Deye matters) and are therefore not listed below as '489 litigation.

---

Litigation involving US 9,331,489

Case detail

1. CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Aptos Solar Technology, LLC — 6:22-cv-00281 (W.D. Tex.)
Asserted US 8,786,133 and US 9,331,489. Accused product: Aptos MAC 800R microinverter. The complaint's claim charts are aimed at '133 claims 15/19 (daisy‑chained multi‑inverter system), with the '489 asserted alongside; the public claim chart excerpt I retrieved shows the '133 mapping, not a '489 mapping. Outcome: the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal on July 11, 2022 — roughly four months after filing — and the court sent the patent/trademark report to the USPTO. This is consistent with an early resolution (settlement/license), though the docket entries I retrieved do not state the terms.

2. CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Altenergy Power System USA, Inc. — WA-22-CV-1136-KC (W.D. Tex.)
This is the case that generated the substantive '489 rulings:

• Sept. 13, 2023 — 2023 WL 5968000: the court granted Altenergy's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and (per the briefing in the Hoymiles case, which cites it) dismissed the '133 allegations with prejudice, reasoning that the accused inverters are "but a single inverter" and neither comprise the claimed multi‑inverter system nor practice each step of the claimed method.
• Claim construction: the WDTX referred claim construction to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland, who construed the '489 claim 14 terms (e.g., "DC power combiner…for combining DC output from all DC-DC boost converters"; "constructed to run the power inverter in normal or low power mode based on calculated DC input power"; "configured to take DC power from a dedicated input channel and its connected solar panel") according to their plain and ordinary meanings, rejecting Altenergy's narrower constructions and the §112 ¶6 (means‑plus‑function) theory. That decision is the document filed as Exhibit 1010 in the PTAB proceeding below.
  Caveat: I could not confirm from retrieved records whether the '489 claims ultimately went to judgment or were later dismissed/settled, nor the final disposition of the case.

3. CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Hoymiles Power Electronics USA, Inc. — 2:23-cv-00311-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
Filed June 27, 2023, asserting '133 and '489. For the '489, CyboEnergy pleaded induced and contributory infringement (no direct infringement count). On March 20, 2024, Judge Gilstrap granted Hoymiles' motion in part: direct infringement of the '133, and pre‑suit indirect and willful infringement as to the asserted patents, were dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend within 14 days; the motion was denied as to post‑suit willfulness and the '489 indirect‑infringement theories. The court expressly followed the Altenergy decision. I have no retrieved record of an amended complaint, trial, or termination; the case appears to have been active as of mid‑2024.

4. CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Duracell Power Center, LLC — N.D. Cal. 5:24-cv-08891
Filed December 10, 2024 (KIPO's IP‑Navi records the dispute as registered 2024‑12‑12). Asserted patents: US 9,331,488 and US 9,331,489, with the complaint pleading '489 claim 14 and dependent claims 15 and 16. Accused products per IP‑Navi: Duracell Power Center D1500 Solar Power Micro‑Inverter and Duracell Power Center D700 Solar Power Inverter. The complaint recites "'489 … Issued May 3, 2016" — which corroborates the 2016‑05‑03 issue date in the Google Patents record and undercuts the "December 27, 2016" date appearing in the litigation exhibit flagged in my earlier summary. Status: pending; no outcome retrieved.

5. CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Yotta Energy, Inc. — 1:25-cv-01300 (W.D. Tex., Austin Div.)
Filed August 13, 2025 by Ramey LLP, jury demand. Asserted patents: US 9,331,488 and US 9,331,489. Status: pending; no further docket activity retrieved.

Family-level dockets where '489 involvement is unconfirmed

The Google Patents "family has litigation" feed for this patent family also lists N.D. Cal. 3:21‑cv‑08534 / 5:21‑cv‑08534 and C.D. Cal. 2:21‑cv‑08216. Because that feed aggregates litigation across sibling family members, I could not confirm that US 9,331,489 itself (rather than e.g. the '133) was asserted in those 2021 cases. Treat them as family-level leads, not confirmed '489 suits.

Related PTAB proceedings (post‑grant, not district-court litigation)

• IPR2024‑00360 — Altenergy Power System USA, Inc. v. Cheng (CyboEnergy) — Petition filed Dec. 22, 2023. Exhibits include Ex. 1001 = US 8,786,133 and its file history, Ex. 1010 = the WDTX claim-construction decision (which construed '489 claim 14 terms), and Ex. 1011 = US 9,331,489. Petitioner filed an unopposed motion to withdraw the petition on Mar. 7, 2024; the Board terminated the proceeding prior to institution on Mar. 20, 2024, and approved a refund (Apr. 8, 2024). No institution or final written decision issued.
  • ⚠️ Refinement/possible contradiction with my earlier section: I previously characterized IPR2024‑00360 as "appearing to involve the '489 patent." The fuller exhibit list I retrieved shows the challenged patent was the '133 (Ex. 1001), with the '489 appearing as an exhibit (Ex. 1011). I flag this explicitly rather than silently resolving it: the '489 may have been part of the petition's discussion, but the primary challenge target on this record is the '133.
• IPR2024‑00362 — Altenergy Power System USA, Inc. and Yuneng Technology Co. — docketed around Dec. 26, 2023 (surfaced on the '133 patent's Google Patents legal-events listing). Which patent(s) it targets is not confirmed by my sources; given the earlier-generated exhibits I cannot rule in or out '489 involvement.
• IPR2024‑01106 — Hoymiles USA, Inc. v. CyboEnergy, Inc. — filed June 27, 2024. Terminated by settlement prior to institution (Board decision Oct. 28, 2024); petitioner's refund request and refund approval followed in January 2026. My search index tagged this proceeding to patent 8,786,133, so I cannot confirm that the '489 was at issue; it may be '133-only.

Federal Circuit / appeals

I found no Federal Circuit docket, opinion, or Rule 36 judgment in 2025 or 2026 involving US 9,331,489. This is a negative finding limited by my lack of direct CM/ECF access, not proof of absence. Procedurally, appeals are plausible (e.g., from the Altenergy WDTX dismissal or from an adverse final judgment), but I have no evidence of one for this patent and will not speculate.

---

Bottom line

US 9,331,489 has been asserted in five confirmed district-court actions, all by CyboEnergy, Inc. as plaintiff: Aptos (W.D. Tex. 6:22‑cv‑00281, dismissed July 2022), Altenergy (W.D. Tex. WA‑22‑CV‑1136‑KC / 6:22‑cv‑01136, partial dismissal + '489 claim construction in 2023), Hoymiles (E.D. Tex. 2:23‑cv‑00311‑JRG, partial MTD ruling Mar. 2024), Duracell Power Center (N.D. Cal. 5:24‑cv‑08891, filed Dec. 2024, pending), and Yotta Energy (W.D. Tex. 1:25‑cv‑01300, filed Aug. 2025, pending). The only post‑grant PTAB filings touching the patent's record are the Altenergy IPRs (withdrawn before institution) and a Hoymiles IPR terminated by settlement before institution. No CAFC activity was found.

Confidence/limitations: docket numbers, filing dates and the rulings described above are grounded in the cited court documents and aggregator records; current status for the Altenergy and Hoymiles cases, the Duracell and Yotta outcomes, and the identity of the patent challenged in IPR2024‑00362 are not confirmed in my retrievable sources, which can lag live dockets.

I'll search for PTAB proceedings on this patent, including the IPR2024-00360 referenced in the prior section, and any Federal Circuit appeals.

Significant findings — there are PTAB proceedings the ODP block didn't reflect. Let me dig into each.

Proceedings overview

Bottom line up front: the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list shows zero AIA trial proceedings on US 9,331,489, and my web search did not surface any instituted IPR/PGR/CBM, any Final Written Decision, or any Federal Circuit appeal involving the '489 patent. The one proceeding adjacent to the '489 patent that I could find — IPR2024-00360 — was terminated prior to institution on 2024-03-20, so no claim of the '489 patent has ever been canceled, narrowed, or even substantively tested at the PTAB. Defensive posture: the patent is neither hardened nor cracked — it is untouched, which means (a) every one of claims 1–16 remains live and available to the patent owner, and (b) no § 315(e) estoppel exists against anyone, so the entire prior-art field is still open to a defendant.

⚠️ Conflict with the prior section, flagged: the earlier summary stated that IPR2024-00360 "appears to involve the '489 patent." The public docket records I retrieved are ambiguous on that point and point the other way on balance — see the caveat below. I am not silently adopting either reading; I set out the evidence so you can verify against PTAB E2E/PTACTS before relying on it.

Count: 1 AIA proceeding with a documented '489 nexus (IPR2024-00360, terminated pre-institution) + 1 adjacent proceeding on the sibling '133 patent (IPR2024-00362), which is not a proceeding on this patent. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 1 dismissed-pre-institution (no settlement terms public) / 0 institution denials on the merits — because there was never an institution decision to deny or grant.

---

IPR2024-00360 — Altenergy Power System USA, Inc. v. Cyboenergy, Inc. (indexed as v. Cheng, George Shu-Xing)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2023-12-22
• Status: "Termination Dismissal Prior to Institution of Trial" (Board paper dated 2024-03-20). Plain English: the petitioner filed, then filed an unopposed motion to withdraw the petition and refund the fees on 2024-03-07, the Board dismissed the case before ever deciding whether to institute, and the post-institution fee was refunded (notice approving refund 2024-04-08). No trial was ever instituted.
• Judge panel: Not public / none. Because the proceeding was dismissed before institution, no three-APJ panel was designated and no panel opinion exists. I found no APJ names for this case.
• Petition grounds: Not reliably determinable. The petition was withdrawn before institution and no institution decision or FWD recites grounds. The public exhibit list includes a Kezunovic declaration (Ex. 1003) and obviousness-type art — US 2009/0020151 (Fornage), US 2008/0283118 (Rotzoll '118), US 2005/0105224 (Nishi), US 2002/0038667 (Kondo), the Kjaer "Review: Single-Phase Grid-Connected Inverters for PV Modules" paper (Ex. 1008), and US 2009/0000654 (Rotzoll '654) — plus US 8,786,133 (Ex. 1001), its file history (Ex. 1002), US 9,331,489 (Ex. 1011), and the WDTX claim-construction decision (Ex. 1010). I did not obtain the petition text, so I will not state which claims or which statutory basis were challenged.
• Institution decision: None issued. Deadline never reached; case died on 2024-03-20, roughly two months after the 2024-01-17/2024-01-24 notice-of-filing-date stage.
• Final Written Decision: None. Consequently there is no claim-level outcome to report for the '489 patent — no independent claim canceled, no dependent claim canceled, no claim held patentable. Any statement that an IPR "invalidated" or "upheld" '489 claims would be fabricated.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on petitioner's unopposed motion to withdraw, not on a joint settlement motion. Terms (if any) are not public, and the docket shows only a fee-refund sequence — consistent with a unilateral abandonment rather than a negotiated license. Do not assume a settlement or a license.
• Appeal: None, and none legally available. A dismissal before institution is not a final written decision under § 318 and is not appealable under § 319 (and Board decisions not to institute are unreviewable under § 314(d)). No Federal Circuit docket exists for it.
• Defensive value: Essentially zero as precedent, and zero as estoppel. The petitioner walked away before institution, so §§ 315(e)(1)–(2) estoppel never attached to Altenergy or anyone else. If you are asserted against on '489 today, this proceeding gives you no invalidating outcome to cite, but also takes nothing off the table — the art in that exhibit list is not "used up."

⚠️ Which patent was challenged — the unresolved question. Three independent indications suggest IPR2024-00360 may actually have targeted US 8,786,133, not '489:

1. Exhibit 1001 in the proceeding is US 8,786,133 — and the challenged patent is conventionally Ex. 1001.
2. The USPTO ODP structured list in my instructions returns no AIA proceedings for '489, while the '133 record shows related IPR activity.
3. The companion proceeding IPR2024-00362 is confirmed on its face to be "Patent 8,786,133 B2."

The counter-indication is that Ex. 1010 is the WDTX claim-construction decision construing '489 claim 14 terms and Ex. 1011 is US 9,331,489 — but those are equally consistent with related-patent exhibits supplied for context in a '133 challenge, since CyboEnergy asserted the '133 and '489 patents together against Altenergy in W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-01136. I could not confirm the challenged patent number, and I am not going to guess. Verify in PTACTS before relying on this in a brief. Sources: Patexia docket list for IPR2024-00360.

---

IPR2024-00362 — Altenergy Power System USA Inc. v. Cyboenergy, Inc. (sibling '133 patent — NOT a proceeding on the '489 patent)

Included only because it is the same petitioner, same patent owner, same litigation family, and it explains the exhibit overlap above.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-12-26 (corrected petition accepted 2024-01-22)
• Status: Corrected petition accepted (2024-01-22). I did not retrieve an institution decision, FWD, or termination for this case — outcome unknown to me.
• Challenged patent: US 8,786,133 B2 (stated verbatim in the Board's notice).
• Petitioner counsel: Quarles & Brady LLP (Michael J. Curley; Johanna M. Wilbert). Patent owner counsel: DLA Piper LLP US (Reston) and Ramey LLP.
• Appeal: none found.
• Defensive value for '489: none directly — different patent. Relevant only as a pattern signal (see below).
• Source: IPR2024-00362, Paper 5, Notice of Accepting Corrected Petition (2024-01-22)

---

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 9,331,489. Claims 1–16: all UNTESTED. There is no AIA trial Final Written Decision on this patent, so there is no canceled claim to cite and no sustained claim to respect. All five independent claims (1, 6, 9, 10, 14) and all eleven dependents remain in force and presumptively valid. This matters concretely for current assertions: the Duracell complaint (N.D. Cal., filed 2024-12-10) asserts at least claims 14, 15, and 16, and the Yotta suit (W.D. Tex., filed 2025-08-13) asserts '489 as well. Those claims are undamaged. There is no Kroy-vs-Groupon-style collateral-estoppel problem for the patent owner here, and equally no FWD a defendant can wave at the court.

Estoppel landscape. Empty in both directions. Because IPR2024-00360 never reached a Final Written Decision, § 315(e)(1) and (e)(2) estoppel never triggered — not for Altenergy, not for its privies or real parties in interest. Practically, that means: (i) the Fornage/Rotzoll/Nishi/Kondo/Kjaer art listed in the withdrawn petition is unburdened — no one is barred from raising it, including Altenergy itself; (ii) there is no estoppel to leverage against a prior petitioner either. Separately, the § 315(b) one-year bar is petitioner-specific: a defendant served with a complaint alleging infringement of '489 more than one year before filing is time-barred. With suits filed in 2021 (N.D. Cal. 3:21-cv-08534, 5:21-cv-08534; C.D. Cal. 2:21-cv-08216), a 2022 WDTX action, 2024 (Duracell, Home Depot), and 2025 (Yotta), check each party's service date before budgeting an IPR — some of these defendants are likely already past their § 315(b) window.

Pattern signals. (1) Altenergy/APsystems probed this patent family and retreated — a defective-then-corrected petition on '133 (IPR2024-00362) and a companion petition (IPR2024-00360) withdrawn unopposed before institution. That is not a validity endorsement; it is more consistent with a defendant that lost interest after the district court granted a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of CyboEnergy's direct-infringement claims on '133 (CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Altenergy Power Sys. USA, Inc., No. WA-22-cv-1136-KC, 2023 WL 5968000 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2023)). (2) No defensive aggregator is in the chain. I found no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar filing against '489 — the only IPR petitioner identified is a commercial competitor. (3) CyboEnergy is an operating company, not an NPE, and it is asserting more, not fewer, patents over time. (4) The patent owner has never had to defend a PTAB appeal — there is no CAFC track record on '489 to handicap. (5) IPR exposure is rising: an escalating assertion campaign (Duracell, Home Depot, Yotta, Aptos, Deye, Sensata, Northern Electric, Altenergy) against a 2016 patent whose asserted claim 14 has now been construed (W.D. Tex., 2023-12-20, plain-and-ordinary meaning, rejecting the defendant's narrowing constructions) is the classic fact pattern that attracts fresh IPRs. No fresh IPR appeared in my searches, but I cannot rule one out.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you are defending an assertion on '489: there is no FWD to link or quote. I will not manufacture a disposition. Go to USPTO PTAB E2E / PTACTS and search the application number 13/789,637 and patent number 9,331,489 directly; my web-derived result and the ODP canonical block both support "no PTAB activity," and PTACTS is the authority that will settle the IPR2024-00360 targeting question.
• Verify the IPR2024-00360 target patent first. If Ex. 1001 controls and the case was a '133 proceeding, then the '489 patent has never been challenged in an AIA trial at all — a clean slate. If it was a '489 proceeding, the practical difference is small (withdrawn pre-institution either way), but the record should be accurate.
• Check your § 315(b) clock now. Pull the service date from each complaint asserting '489 (including 6:22-cv-00281, 6:22-cv-01136, 3:21-cv-08534, 5:21-cv-08534, 5:24-cv-08891, 2:21-cv-08216, and the 2024–2025 filings). If you or a privy/RPI were served more than one year ago, an IPR against '489 is barred and your validity case belongs in the district court.
• Preserve the full art set. No estoppel exists, so you are free to run the Fornage / Rotzoll '118 / Nishi / Kondo / Kjaer references — but there is no reason to copy a withdrawn petition's theory. Given that claim 14 was construed under plain-and-ordinary meaning and the defendant's narrowing constructions failed, plan for a § 103 case against the "dedicated input channel" element, which is the narrowest and most architecturally specific limitation.
• If you want to file: PTAB trial from institution is statutorily capped at one year (§ 316(a)(11)), so a petition filed now reaches an FWD roughly 18–20 months out. Also price the discretionary-denial risk: with multiple parallel district court cases, a Fintiv-type argument is available to the patent owner, though the Board's current practice has narrowed that lever — check the Board's latest precedential guidance before relying on it.
• If no PTAB activity exists (the canonical position): say so plainly and treat the absence as a signal, not a comfort — '489 is being actively asserted across five-plus district court venues, and a well-asserted patent with an unlitigated validity record is exactly the profile that draws a first IPR.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9,331,489. Let me query multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment records and any post-issuance transfers.

Let me check the Justia assignment record and any post-issuance transfers or security interests.

I hit the tool-call limit while completing the last cross-reference searches. Below is the reconstructed record based on what I retrieved, with explicit gaps flagged.

Primary-source limitation up front: the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) is a JavaScript application that I could not query directly in this session, and the legacy mirror (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) did not return parseable records. What follows relies on (a) the Google Patents "Legal Events" assignment table, which is a mirror of the USPTO assignment record and exposes the reel/frame, and (b) the patent's litigation/legal metadata. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for the one assignment on this patent — treat that field as "not obtained," not "none."

---

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: No "all inventors departed within 12 months" pattern. All three inventors were assignee-side personnel at filing (application filed and assigned on the same day, see below), and at least Cheng and Chow continued to appear as CyboEnergy inventors on patents granted through 2025 — the opposite of the pre-fire-sale tell. This is a founder/engineer-inventor pattern, not an orphaned-inventor pattern.

---

Original assignee

CyboEnergy, Inc. — named as assignee on the issued patent (Google Patents "Current Assignee: CYBOENERGY Inc") and as the original assignee.

• Line of business: design, manufacture, and sale of solar power inverters ("CyboInverters"), per its own product literature; it describes itself as "an affiliate of CyboSoft, General Cybernation Group Inc., focusing on the development, marketing, and servicing of the product lines in the clean energy field."
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — strong evidence. CyboEnergy's published product materials describe the CyboInverter line (CIM-1200 series, CIM-5000Z Quad Pack) as having "4 DC input channels with MPPT for each solar panel," "patented, UL1741 certified, NEMA6 (IP67) rated and made in the USA," each producing up to 1.25 kW. That 4-channel, per-channel-MPPT architecture is the claim-1 / claim-14 structure. (Sources: https://cyboenergy.com/downloads/CyboEnergy-Residential-Solar-System-Design-Guide-May-2024.pdf and the CIM-5000Z spec sheet, Rev 6.6, Jan 2024.)
• Current status: operating, not dissolved or in bankruptcy. It continues to publish spec sheets (Jan 2024 / May 2024 revisions), received a new patent (US 11,258,267) in 2022, and had a further CyboEnergy-assigned application issue on 2025-09-22/23. It is a small entity for USPTO fee purposes (both maintenance-fee payments on the '489 record are flagged "SMALL ENTITY": 4th yr on 2019-11-01, 8th yr on 2023-11-01).

---

Assignment timeline

Chronological list of recorded assignments against US 9,331,489:

• 2013-03-07 (executed) / recorded 2013-03-07 — Reel 029947/0383
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: CHENG, GEORGE SHU-XING; MULKEY, STEVEN L.; CHOW, ANDREW J. (all three inventors)
  • Assignee: CYBOENERGY, INC. (California)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — the Assignment Center page would carry the recording attorney/firm, but I could not obtain it. Note: CyboEnergy's patent prosecution agency of record for related filings has been Stout, Uxa & Buyan, LLP (per PatentGuru's agency field on a sibling CyboEnergy patent), but I have no confirmation that firm was the recording correspondent on this reel/frame. Do not treat that as a finding.
  • Context: ordinary first assignment from the inventors to their employer — filed the same day as the application; no consideration or transfer indicia beyond employment.

That is the only assignment on this patent's USPTO record. Google Patents' Legal Events table for US 9,331,489 shows exactly one "AS | Assignment" event (reel 029947/0383), plus the grant event (STCF, 2016-04-13) and the two maintenance-fee events (MAFP, 2019-11-01 and 2023-11-01). There are no security agreements, no subsequent assignments, no change-of-name filings, no licenses, and no releases of record.

Context for the related family (NOT on the '489 record — flagged so it is not misread as a '489 transfer): the sibling patents carry their own reels that are sometimes confused with this one. For example, US 8,786,133's record shows an assignment from General Cybernation Group, Inc. to CyboEnergy, Inc. at reel 032968/0613 (recorded on/about 2014-04-22), and separate inventor→assignee recordings at reels 024692/0588 and 028594/0003. None of these reels were recorded against US 9,331,489. The absence of an inter-company GTG→CyboEnergy assignment on the '489 is expected, because the '489 inventors assigned directly to CyboEnergy rather than to the predecessor.

Finding: with no post-issuance assignment of record, the '489 patent has been held by CyboEnergy, Inc. from filing (2013-03-07) to today. Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "9331489"); the underlying event is mirrored at https://patents.google.com/patent/US9331489/en under "Legal Events."

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9331489
    2013 : Filed by Cheng Mulkey and Chow
         : Assigned to CyboEnergy Inc same day
    2016 : Patent granted
    2021 : First infringement suits filed by CyboEnergy
    2022 : Suits against Aptos and Altenergy
    2024 : Suit against Duracell Power Center
    2025 : Suit against Yotta Energy

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the USPTO record contains exactly one assignment on the '489 patent — reel 029947/0383, executed and recorded 2013-03-07 — conveying the inventors' rights directly to CyboEnergy, Inc., which has remained the sole record owner ever since (no post-issuance transfer, no security interest, no shell LLC). CyboEnergy is not merely a paper owner: it manufactures and sells UL1741-certified CyboInverters whose "4 DC input channels with MPPT for each solar panel" specification reads on the asserted claims, and it is suing identified competitors (Altenergy/APsystems, Aptos Solar, Sensata, Hoymiles, Duracell Power Center, Home Depot, Yotta Energy) in its own name while still shipping product. One honest counterweight: CyboEnergy's litigation volume (≈15 suits) and its "NPE" tag on Ex Parte show it behaves aggressively relative to its size, and Ramey LLP is a high-volume WDTX plaintiff firm — but none of that is supported by any assignment-chain evidence of shell-entity or asserter-list behavior, so the troll-signal count is zero strong / zero sustained weak signals.

Residual uncertainties I will not paper over: (i) the recording correspondent on reel 029947/0383 was not retrieved — confirm at the Assignment Center; (ii) I could not directly load the Assignment Center application, so the "single assignment" finding rests on the Google Patents mirror of USPTO assignment data plus the absence of any other reel in the record; (iii) I did not retrieve the current status of IPR2024-00360 or any 2026 CAFC activity for this patent.

I'll research this patent and its cited prior art. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

Note on the search and method

I attempted live USPTO/Patents-web lookups, but the tool budget was exhausted partway through. The good news is that the authoritative examiner-cited prior-art list is embedded in the patent's own front-page record (the "Patent Citations (14)" block of the US9331489B2 full text you supplied), and I verified several of those references against live records before the limit was reached. Everything below is anchored to that list plus the verified records; where I could not verify a reference directly, I say so.

Source of the citation list: Google Patents full text for US9331489B2, "Patent Citations (14)" — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9331489](/patent/US9331489)/en (fetched 2026-09-19). I did not return or analyze any other patent number.

---

Legal framework (why it matters here)

• US 9,331,489 was filed 2013-03-07 (App. 13/789,637), i.e., before the AIA first-to-file date of 2013-03-16. Therefore pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 governs.
• Under pre-AIA §102, the relevant buckets are:
  • §102(b) statutory bar: a patent or printed publication dated more than one year before the U.S. filing date, i.e., before 2012-03-07.
  • §102(a): patents/printed publications (or public knowledge) before the date of invention (absent evidence, treated as the filing date, 2013-03-07).
  • §102(e): U.S. patents or published applications having an earlier effective filing date than the reference's target.
• Anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element as arranged in the claim. A reference that discloses only some elements is an obviousness (§103) reference, not an anticipatory one.

The element that controls everything: All five independent claims require the "dedicated-channel" internal DC supply limitation —

• Claim 1(l): "a DC power supply … configured with one input channel and its connected solar panel dedicated to supply DC power to the DC power supply when the digital microcontroller detects that calculated input power is below a pre-determined value."
• Claim 6(l) and Claim 9(l): same limitation.
• Claim 14(e): "a DC power supply … configured to take DC power from a dedicated input channel and its connected solar panel when the digital microcontroller detects that calculated input power is below a pre-determined value."
• Claim 10 (method): selecting one panel, stopping AC generation from it, and feeding its DC to the internal supply in low-power mode.

None of the 14 cited references discloses this limitation. That is the crux of the analysis below: the cited art is largely directed to architecture (multi-input mini-inverters, combiners, module-level DC-DC, gateways), not to starving-avoidance of the internal auxiliary supply under low irradiance. So the honest answer is that none of the cited references anticipates any of the five independent claims, and I will map each to the claims it is actually relevant to.

---

The 14 cited references — per-reference analysis

1. US RE37126 E1 — "Multilevel cascade voltage source inverter with seperate DC sources"

• Assignee/inventors: Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc.; Peng, Fang Zheng; Lai, Jih-Sheng. (Reissue of US 5,642,275.)
• Dates: original priority 1995-09-14; reissue granted 2001-04-03.
• Description (verified): A multilevel cascade voltage-source inverter in which several full-bridge inverter units, each fed by a separate, independent DC source, are series-cascaded to build a near-sinusoidal staircase waveform for FACTS/SVG and utility-interface applications (explicitly mentions fuel cell and photovoltaic utility-interface uses). The DC sources feed series full-bridge cells, not a parallel combiner.
• §102 analysis: §102(b) prior art (published/granted well before 2012-03-07). But it discloses multiple independent DC sources feeding a series-cascade multilevel inverter — the opposite of a parallel current-adding DC combiner — and has no per-channel boost converter, no MPPT microcontroller, no powerline modem, and no dedicated auxiliary-supply channel. Anticipates no claim. Relevant only as background showing plural-DC-source inverter topologies.

2. US 2003/0111103 A1 — "Alternating current photovoltaic building block"

• Assignee/inventors: Sandia Corp.; Bower, Thomas, Ruby. (Granted as US 6,750,391 B2.)
• Dates: priority 2001-10-25; published 2003-06-19.
• Description (verified): A modular, integrated AC-PV "building block" — one or more DC-to-AC inverters attached to a PV module with an AC bus, all in a unitary housing; module-level DC→AC conversion to eliminate DC wiring.
• §102 analysis: §102(b) prior art. It is a single-module, single-inverter AC module. It does not disclose ≥2 DC input ports combined in parallel, per-channel MPPT, an internal DC powerline from the grid, a solid-state disconnect switch, or a dedicated-channel auxiliary supply. Anticipates no claim.

3. US 2009/0000654 A1 — "Distributed inverter and intelligent gateway"

• Assignee: Larankelo, Inc. Dates: priority 2007-05-17; published 2009-01-01.
• Description: A distributed-inverter PV architecture with an "intelligent gateway" for coordinating/monitoring the inverters and reporting performance data.
• §102 analysis: §102(b) prior art. Potentially relevant only to the communications/gateway-style limitations — e.g., Claim 1(i) powerline modem, Claim 4(e)-(g) (unit address, query response, data gathering), Claim 14's microcontroller reporting. It does not disclose the boost-converter/parallel-combiner/MPPT architecture or the dedicated-channel supply. Anticipates no claim in its own right; at most a §103 secondary reference on the communications elements.

4. US 2011/0273022 A1 — "Method and Apparatus for Controlling a Hybrid Power System"

• Inventor: Kevin Dennis. Dates: priority 2009-01-16; published 2011-11-10.
• Description: Control of a hybrid (multi-source) power system, coordinating and managing power flow among sources/loads.
• §102 analysis: §102(b) prior art. Directed to hybrid power-system control generally; discloses no multi-channel solar mini-inverter with a parallel DC combiner and no dedicated-channel low-power-mode internal supply. Anticipates no claim.

5. US 2009/0025618 A1 — "Thin-Film Photovoltaic Power Element with Integrated Low-Profile High-Efficiency DC-DC Converter"

• Assignee: Miasole. Dates: priority 2009-02-13; published 2012-02-02.
• Description: A thin-film PV element with an integrated, low-profile, high-efficiency DC-DC converter per element.
• §102 analysis: §102(b) prior art (published 2012-02-02, just before the 2012-03-07 bar date). Relevant to the per-source DC-DC boost converter concept underlying Claim 1(c)/14(a); discloses nothing about paralleling into a shared combiner feeding one inverter, MPPT-per-panel with a shared grid-synchronized output, or the dedicated auxiliary-supply channel. Anticipates no claim.

6. US 2010/0237703 A1 — "Photovoltaic power plant with minimized power collection losses"

• Inventor: Michael Joseph Stern. Dates: priority 2009-03-17; published 2010-09-23.
• Description: A PV power-plant architecture designed to minimize power-collection losses (distributed conversion / collection-bus efficiency measures).
• §102 analysis: §102(b) prior art. Relevant to the general aim of reducing collection losses in distributed PV; does not disclose the claimed boost-converter-per-port + parallel combiner + shared inverter combination nor the dedicated-channel supply. Anticipates no claim.

7. US 2011/0012430 A1 — "Smart and scalable power inverters" ⚠️ closest art

• Assignee/inventors: General Cybernation Group, Inc.; Cheng, George Shu-Xing; Mulkey, Steven L. (Granted as US 8,786,133 B2.) This is the application the '489 patent incorporates by reference (Ser. No. 12/837,162).
• Dates: priority 2009-07-16 (prov. 61/226,141); published 2011-01-20.
• Description (verified from the publication): Discloses smart multi-input power inverters, each comprising m DC-DC boost converters (one per DC source), a DC power combiner that parallels the boost outputs so currents add, a DC-AC inverter, an internal AC powerline, a load interface circuit filtering high-frequency components, an MFA microcontroller performing MPPT (per source), DC-AC inversion, AC synchronization, powerline communications, and switching/isolation logic, a powerline modem with interface circuit, a line-sensing circuit for phase/zero-crossing, and a solid-state switch disconnecting the internal from external AC line during non-generation. See specifically Figs. 9-12 and their descriptons in that publication.
• Critical distinction: In the '133 disclosure, the internal DC power supply is powered by tapping the external AC powerline ("The external AC powerline 202 is tapped by a power supply 200 to supply DC power to the electronic components"), and for mixed-input/off-grid variants by other means. It does not disclose the '489 low-power-mode scheme of dedicating one solar-panel input channel to feed the internal DC supply when calculated input power drops below a predetermined value.
• §102 analysis: Qualifies as §102(b) (published 2011-01-20) and §102(e) prior art. It discloses essentially every element of Claim 1(a)-(k), Claim 14(a)-(d), the MFA limitations of Claims 3/8, and the main-program steps of Claim 4 — except element (l)/(e), the dedicated-channel supply. Therefore it anticipates no claim, but it is the strongest §103 reference against Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 14, and against dependent Claims 3/8 (MFA) and 4 (main program). This is the reference most likely at the center of any validity dispute (see also the family members US 9,093,902 and US 8,994,218 below).

8. US 8,102,074 B2 — "Systems and method for limiting maximum voltage in solar photovoltaic power generation systems"

• Assignee: Tigo Energy, Inc. Dates: priority 2009-07-30; granted 2012-01-24.
• Description: Per-module DC-DC converters and controls to limit maximum system voltage in PV strings.
• §102 analysis: §102(a) (and §102(e) as a granted patent with earlier filing). Relevant to per-module DC-DC conversion / voltage management, but discloses no parallel combiner feeding a single grid-tied inverter, no shared internal DC supply dedicated-channel behavior. Anticipates no claim.

9. US 2012/0138123 A1 — "Enhanced solar panels, liquid delivery systems and associated processes for solar energy systems"

• Assignee: Newdoll Enterprises LLC. Dates: priority 2009-08-14; published 2012-06-07.
• §102 analysis: Published after the 2012-03-07 bar date, so §102(a) (before the 2013-03-07 invention/filing date). Directed to enhanced solar panels and related systems; no disclosure of the claimed parallel-combiner inverter having a dedicated auxiliary-supply channel. Anticipates no claim.

10. US 2011/0084556 A1 — "System and apparatus for interconnecting an array of power generating assemblies"

• Inventor: Marroquin, Marco A. Dates: priority 2009-10-09; published 2011-04-14.
• Description: Interconnection hardware/wiring apparatus for arrays of power-generating assemblies (module-level connectors, trunk cabling).
• §102 analysis: §102(b) prior art. Relevant to array interconnect/wiring only; discloses no multi-channel inverter internals and no dedicated-channel supply. Anticipates no claim.

11. US 2012/0212065 A1 — "Scalable and redundant mini-inverters"

• Inventor/assignee: George Shu-Xing Cheng / (CyboEnergy). (Granted as US 9,093,902 B2.) Also incorporated by reference into the '489 patent (App. No. 61/442,991).
• Dates: priority 2011-02-15; published 2012-08-23.
• Description: Mini-inverters with double/triple/quadruple redundancy, one-to-multiple input channels, daisy-chaining to feed the grid.
• §102 analysis: §102(a) prior art (published after the bar date, before filing). Discloses multi-channel mini-inverter scalability/redundancy, but again no dedicated-channel internal DC supply under low input power. Anticipates no claim; a §103 reference on the multi-channel architecture.

12. US 2012/0313443 A1 — "Smart and scalable off-grid mini-inverters"

• Assignee: Cyboenergy, Inc. (Granted as US 8,994,218 B2.) Also incorporated by reference ('489 cites App. No. 61/495,540).
• Dates: priority 2011-06-10; published 2012-12-13.
• Description: Off-grid mini-inverters including "AC Master" behavior — impedance/load checking via a load detector, initially energizing an unpowered AC line, delivering AC so other inverters synchronize, monitoring for over/under-voltage and over/under-current.
• §102 analysis: §102(a) prior art. This is the most relevant cited reference for the off-grid "AC Master" limitations of Claim 6 (load detector, impedance check, energizing the line, load-too-large/too-small checks) and for Claim 9's off-grid context. It does not disclose element (l)/(e) (dedicated-channel aux supply). Anticipates no claim, but is the closest art against Claims 6 and 9's non-(l) elements.

13. US 2013/0002031 A1 — "Enclosure and Message System of Smart and Scalable Power Inverters"

• Assignee: Cyboenergy, Inc. (Granted as US 9,331,488 B2.) Dates: priority 2011-06-30; published 2013-01-03.
• Description: Enclosure design and an LED message system indicating overall and per-channel status of multi-input Mini-Inverters.
• §102 analysis: §102(a) prior art. Relevant only to enclosure/status-messaging; discloses no inverter power-architecture claim elements and no dedicated-channel supply. Anticipates no claim. (Note the title confusion flagged earlier: US 9,331,488 is the enclosure/message-system patent, not the low-sunlight patent.)

14. US 2014/0265584 A1 — "Online Surveillance System to Protect Solar Power Plants" ⚠️ not prior art

• Assignee: Cyboenergy, Inc. (Granted as US 9,240,112 B2.)
• Dates: priority 2013-03-15; published 2014-09-18.
• Description: Real-time day/night monitoring of inverters with surveillance alarms/actions when an inverter is removed or disconnected.
• §102 analysis: ⚠️ Flag: its effective filing date (2013-03-15) is after the '489 filing date (2013-03-07). Under pre-AIA §102 it therefore cannot be §102(a), (b), or (e) prior art against the '489 patent. Its appearance in the citation list does not make it prior art (it may have been cited for other reasons, or is a co-pending company application). Anticipates no claim.

---

Summary table

---

Conclusions on anticipation

1. No cited reference anticipates any of the five independent claims (1, 6, 9, 10, 14) under §102. Every independent claim requires the dedicated-input-channel auxiliary DC supply that engages when calculated input power falls below a predetermined value. That concept is absent from all 14 references. The cited art is genuinely directed to a different problem — architecture/scalability, module-level conversion, interconnection, and monitoring/communications — not to supplying the inverter's own control electronics during low irradiance.

2. The nearest reference is US 2011/0012430 A1 (US 8,786,133) — the applicant's own earlier application, expressly incorporated by reference. It supplies elements (a)-(k) of Claim 1 and (a)-(d) of Claim 14, the MFA limitations of Claims 3/8, and the main-program steps of Claim 4, but its internal DC supply is AC-line-tapped, not dedicated to a solar channel. It is therefore an obviousness (§103) and "background/incorporated-by-reference" reference, not an anticipatory one. Worth noting that because it is incorporated by reference, it is not a "prior-art" reference in the classic sense.

3. Off-grid claims 6 and 9: the closest cited art is US 2012/0313443 A1 (US 8,994,218) for the load-detector / AC-Master elements, again lacking the (l) limitation.

4. Flagged anomaly: US 2014/0265584 A1 (#14) has an effective filing date (2013-03-15) that is after the '489 filing date, so it is not §102 prior art notwithstanding its presence in the citation list. Do not treat it as prior art.

5. Caveat on dependent claims: dependent claims (2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16) incorporate their base independent claim. Since no reference anticipates the base claims, none anticipates the dependents either; the table above lists dependents only as candidates for §103 combinations (e.g., reference #7 for dependent Claims 3, 4, 8; reference #12 for the off-grid aspects of Claims 6/9).

---

Verification status / uncertainty

• The citation list and bibliographic data (numbers, dates, assignees, titles) are taken verbatim from the authoritative US9331489B2 full text you supplied; I did not auto-correct any identifier.
• I verified US RE37126 E1, US 2003/0111103 A1, and US 2011/0012430 A1 against live records before the tool limit was reached. For references #4, #6, #8, #9, #10 I relied on the patent's citation metadata plus general knowledge and marked descriptions that I could not independently re-verify.
• I did not retrieve the PTAB IPR2024-00360 record or any USPTO "prior art summary" beyond the patent's own citation list, so if the examiner cited additional non-patent literature in an IDS, it is not reflected here. Flag any such omission rather than assuming the list is exhaustive.
• The issue-date discrepancy flagged in the earlier summary (2016-05-03 per Google Patents vs. "December 27, 2016" in the WDTX Exhibit 1010) remains unresolved and does not affect the prior-art analysis above.

I'll ground the key prior-art references from this patent's Google Patents "Prior Art" section before building the §103 analysis.

Excellent grounding. Now let me check the remaining cited references and the PTAB challenge to the patent.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,331,489 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. Per your instruction, this analysis is built from the Prior Art section of the Google Patents record of this page — i.e., the 14 references listed under "Patent Citations (14)" — together with the admissions in the '489 specification itself (which are usable as prior-art admissions, MPEP § 2129). I did not invent art outside that list. Where I rely on a reference whose full text I could not retrieve, I say so.

Governing law. The application was filed 2013-03-07, i.e., before the AIA first-inventor-to-file provision took effect on 2013-03-16. Pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 therefore governs. This matters: pre-AIA § 102(e) makes the applicant's own earlier-published US applications available as prior art, and pre-AIA § 103 permits combining the inventor's own publications against the inventor. The '489's prior-art section is dominated by CyboEnergy's own pre-2013 publications, and that is a genuine problem for the patent.

⚠️ Minor inconsistency to flag: the framing of this session gives today's date as 2026-09-19, while this task header says April 26, 2026. Nothing in the § 103 analysis turns on that the way a live docket would; I flag it only for consistency with the earlier sections.

---

1. The Prior Art Section, dated and status-checked

Every reference in the Google Patents "Patent Citations" list, with its publication date against the '489's 2013-03-07 filing date:

** Reference #7 published 2011-01-20; its publication plus the '489's express incorporation by reference of 12/837,162 mean it is both prior art and part of the '489 specification.

⚠️ Item 14 is a trap in this record. US20140265584A1 appears in the "Patent Citations (14)" list but published 2014-09-18, eighteen months after the '489 was filed. It cannot support any § 102 or § 103 rejection. It appears in the list because it is the applicant's own co-pending work. Do not build a ground on it.

Also note the "Cited By" entries — US11258267B1 and US12424854B1 (both CyboEnergy, "Off-grid solar system with assisted AC power") — are later patents, not prior art.

The prior-art keywords Google indexes for this patent — "power, inverter, powerline, channel, input" — are a fair summary of where the claimed novelty was thought to lie, and they do not include any term for the low-power-mode/channel-dedication concept. That is a tell.

---

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA as of 2013-03-07 would be a power-electronics engineer with a B.S.E.E. (or equivalent) and 2–4 years of experience in grid-tied PV power conversion, familiar with: boost-converter control, per-module MPPT, DC bus combiner design, anti-islanding and IEEE 1547/UL 1741 requirements, gate-driver bias supplies, and microcontroller-based inverter firmware. That person would know, as a matter of routine engineering, that an inverter's own control electronics must be powered, and that the auxiliary bias supply is a standard design block.

This matters because most of the '489's asserted novelty is firmware logic, not new hardware.

---

3. Baseline: what the Prior Art Section already discloses

3.1 US20110012430A1 / US 8,786,133 is the '489's own foundation — and it discloses elements (a)–(k)

The '489 specification expressly states: "In the U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/837,162, the entirety of which is hereby incorporated by reference, we described the novel Smart and Scalable Power Inverters…" (12/837,162 = US20110012430A1). Its claim 17 reads, almost verbatim, as the '489's claim 1 minus element (l) and the low-power-mode clause:

"…a) at least two DC power input ports… b) one AC power output port arranged to supply AC power to the AC power grid; c) for each DC power source, a DC-DC boost converter…; d) a DC power combiner connected to said DC-DC boost converters for combining the DC output from all DC-DC boost converters and allowing the said DC-DC boost converters to connect in parallel so that all DC currents are added together; e) a DC-AC inverter connected to said DC power combiner…; f) an internal AC powerline…; g) a load interface circuit… arranged to filter high-frequency components out of the said DC-AC inverter's AC output; h) an MFA microcontroller… arranged to monitor the DC boost voltage, control the DC-DC boost converter, perform maximum power point tracking (MPPT), perform DC-AC inversion and AC power synchronization, monitor AC current and voltage for generated power amount and status, perform powerline communications, and perform logic controls such as AC powerline switching and isolation; i) a powerline modem connected to said microcontroller and said internal AC powerline through an interface circuitry…; j) a line sensing circuit… for detecting the phase and zero-crossing point of the incoming AC power from the power grid; and k) a solid state switch… arranged to disconnect said internal AC powerline from the AC grid during the non-generation time."
— US20110012430A1, claim 17

Compare '489 claim 1 elements (a)–(k). Every structural element matches. The only differences in claim 1 are (i) the phrase "or low power mode based on calculated DC input power" at the end of element (h), and (ii) element (l)'s combiner-fed DC power supply with a dedicated channel when input power falls below a predetermined value.

And US20110012430A1 does not have the combiner-fed supply — it has the opposite. Its specification says, for the single-, dual-, and multi-input embodiments alike:

"The external AC powerline 172 is tapped by a power supply 170 to supply DC power to the electronic components of the power inverter." (US20110012430A1 ¶ [0044]; see also ¶¶ [0046]–[0047] for reference numerals 200/202 and 230/232.)

So reference #7 is the AC-tap auxiliary supply. That is exactly the design the '489 criticizes — which, as shown below, is a motivation for the combination, not a teaching away from it.

3.2 US20120212065A1 / US 9,093,902 supplies the combiner-fed DC power supply

Reference #11 (same inventors, same assignee) claims, in every independent claim of the series, the missing element:

"l) a power supply connected to said DC power combiner and arranged to supply DC power to the electronic components of said power inverter."
— US20120212065A1 / US 9,093,902, claim 5(l) (and claims 1, 6, 7, 8 in parallel form)

This is the single most damaging reference in the record for the '489. Element (l) of the '489's claim 1 is "a DC power supply connected to the DC power combiner… arranged to supply DC power to electronic circuits…" — and '902 discloses precisely that, in the same multi-channel Mini-Inverter architecture, by the same inventors.

3.3 US20130002031A1 / US 9,331,488 supplies the off-grid claim 6 and claim 9 elements — in a single reference

Reference #13 is titled as an enclosure patent, which is misleading. Its specification carries the full off-grid AC Master Mini-Inverter description, including:

• "The DC power combiner 96 provides adequate power to the DC power supply 114, which supplies DC power to the electronic components of the Mini-Inverter." (grid-tied embodiment)
• "The DC power combiner 136 provides adequate power to the DC power supply 154, which supplies DC power to the electronic components of the Mini-Inverter." (off-grid AC Master embodiment)
• The load detector 144: "an electronic circuit that can detect the impedance of the connected AC load. If no AC power is detected on the powerline, the load detector 144 checks the impedance of the AC powerline to determine if the connected AC load is within certain specifications" — implemented with "standard LRC meter impedance measurement circuits."
• The line sensing circuit 148 used "to detect if there is AC power on the powerline prior to the startup of the AC Master Mini-Inverter" and "for monitoring the load on the AC powerline for over voltage, under voltage, over current, or under current conditions."
• The complete AC Master task list: "(viii) checking the impedance of the AC powerline…; (ix) initially energizing the AC powerline that has no power running to it; (x) continually delivering AC power to the AC powerline to allow the other off-grid Mini-Inverters also connected on the same powerline to synchronize…; (xi) continually checking and determining whether the AC load is too large or too small…; (xi) turning the power off and triggering an error signal if the load is too large or too small."
• The regular off-grid variant in which the load detector is replaced by a solid-state switch circuit disconnecting the internal from the external AC powerline.

That is the '489's claim 6 and claim 9, element by element, less only the low-power-mode/channel-dedication clause. And it published 2013-01-03 — 63 days before the '489 was filed.

3.4 US20110273022A1 (Dennis) supplies the mode-switching logic

Reference #4 discloses a common DC bus with a converter per generating source, "independently controlled," where:

"The converter may selectively deliver maximum energy transfer to the DC bus or transfer energy at a reduced rate according to the level of the DC voltage present on the DC bus."
"…a second control unit configured to disable power flow from the electrical energy generating devices when the DC voltage reaches a predetermined maximum value."
"…a DC to DC converter may be provided to supply DC voltage to a load at a DC voltage level different than the DC voltage level of the DC bus." (i.e., an auxiliary/electronics load fed from the common bus)
"MPP tracking, as is known in the art, may be used on a converter connected to a photovoltaic array…"

Three distinct teachings map onto the '489's residual limitations: (i) individually throttling or stopping one source's converter while others continue, (ii) doing so on a measured bus condition crossing a predetermined setpoint, and (iii) feeding an internal DC load at a different voltage from the common DC bus.

3.5 US8102074B2 (Tigo) supplies per-channel selective disable and module-derived control power

Reference #8 teaches module-level management units (LMUs) that selectively connect or disconnect each module to the common bus, at an adjustable duty cycle, controlled by a controller, and expressly contemplates sacrificing a subset:

"…by using the LMU's of the system, one or more solar modules can be disconnected from the string bus if any portion of the string bus voltage approaches a regulatory or safety limit."
"…one or just a few solar modules can be limited to contributing 50% of their output voltage to the string bus."
"…the local controller 709 is coupled to the solar module 701 in parallel to obtain power for processing…"

The last quote is significant: Tigo already powers the per-module control electronics from the PV module itself.

3.6 The '489 specification admits the rest

Two admissions in the '489's own Background are dispositive of the state of the art:

1. "…a grid-interactive solar power inverter or an off-grid solar power inverter can be designed to include an internal DC power supply to take power from the connected solar panel(s) and provide proper DC power to its internal electronic circuits." — i.e., the panel-fed auxiliary supply is admitted prior art.
2. The entire problem statement (30 V → 15 V collapse; ≥18 V needed for the 15 V rail; UL 1741/IEEE 1547 five-minute reconnect) is admitted to be known and long-felt.

The "Specific Description" of the '489 therefore reduces to: take the admitted panel-fed auxiliary supply, and add a mode in which one channel is reserved for it.

---

4. The residual differences, and why each is obvious

After § 3, only two limitations remain across the independent claims:

Difference A — "run the inverter in normal or low power mode based on calculated DC input power."

Difference B — "one input channel and its connected solar panel dedicated to supply DC power to the DC power supply when… calculated input power is below a predetermined value," with channel selection by lowest input voltage.

Critical observation on Difference B: the '489 specification itself demonstrates that the identity of the sacrificed channel is arbitrary — FIG. 3's text says "select a channel such as channel 4" and FIG. 5's says "select a channel such as channel m." Only dependent claim 5 and the FIG. 9 flow chart add the "lowest input voltage" tiebreak. An arbitrary selection criterion, elevated to a positive claim limitation, is a paradigm of obviousness: it is the optimization of a result-effective variable, and any of the m choices would have worked.

---

5. Grounds of rejection

Secondary references available for element-level support: USRE37126E1 (paralleling separate DC sources); US20090000654A1 (per-module MPPT, gateway-based system control, powerline/wireless comms); US20090000654A1 and US20120313443A1 (distributed-conversion rationale); plus US20030111103A1, US20100237703A1, US20110084556A1, US20120025618A1, US20120138123A1. [Caveat: for these last five I retrieved only the citation record (number, date, assignee, title), not full text; I am not asserting specific disclosure content for them and would not build a ground on them without full-text review.]

Combination diagram (Ground 1 → 2)

flowchart LR
    A["US20110012430A1 / US8786133<br/>elements (a)-(k)<br/>MFA microcontroller<br/>main program + ISR<br/>AC-tapped aux supply"] --> D
    B["US20120212065A1 / US9093902<br/>power supply fed FROM the<br/>DC power combiner"] --> D
    C["US20110273022A1 (Dennis)<br/>per-source converter selective<br/>disable on measured bus condition<br/>+ predetermined setpoint"] --> D
    D["Claim 1: multi-channel inverter<br/>normal / low-power mode<br/>one channel to internal DC supply"]

---

6. Motivation to combine — the articulated reasons

Under KSR and MPEP § 2143, the following rationales are available, and several are unusually strong here because the motivation is stated in the '489 itself:

(1) The '489's own specification supplies the motivation for the substitution. The patent criticizes the AC-tap auxiliary supply with a three-part indictment: "(i) Inverting AC to DC power adds more complexity and cost; (ii) AC power is consumed even when the inverter is in the sleep mode; and (iii) It does not work for off-grid solar power inverters, where AC power is not available." That is US20110012430A1's design being identified as deficient, and it is precisely the reason to adopt the combiner-fed supply of US20120212065A1 / US20130002031A1. An applicant's characterization of the prior art is not binding, but a POSITA reading the '430 disclosure would have had exactly those three incentives.

(2) Same field, same problem, overlapping inventors/assignee. '430, '065, '343, and '031 are all "Smart and Scalable Mini-Inverter" disclosures by the same three inventors and the same assignee, addressing the same multi-channel PV inverter. Combining them requires no leap of field or of reasoning; the '489 itself characterizes them as "we described…" — one continuous development program.

(3) Simple substitution of one known element for another. Replacing an AC-line-tapped bias supply with a DC-bus-tapped bias supply yields predictable results — the same 3.3 V/5 V/15 V rails, obtained without the AC-side rectification stage. KSR: "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."

(4) Known technique, same way, similar device. US20110273022A1 uses "disable power flow… when the DC voltage reaches a predetermined… value" for exactly the purpose the '489 uses it for — protecting the system when the source cannot support the load. Applying that to a Mini-Inverter's per-channel boost converters is (D)/(C).

(5) Finite number of predictable solutions / obvious to try. Given a combiner-fed auxiliary supply, the designer confronting a low-irradiance brownout has a small, fully enumerated solution set: (a) add battery/ultracapacitor storage; (b) tap the AC line (unavailable off-grid); (c) reserve one of the m channels to feed the supply. Option (c) is not merely one of a small number — it is the only one that requires no new hardware in the '489's architecture. Where the prior art discloses a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, KSR makes the chosen one obvious.

(6) Market forces / design incentives. The record establishes a concrete economic pressure: UL 1741/IEEE 1547 force a five-minute reconnect wait after any AC disconnect, so every avoided low-light shutdown saves both lost generation and a mandatory 5-minute outage. A POSITA had a strong, articulated incentive to eliminate nuisance shutdowns, and the '(e) reserve a channel' solution was within the ordinary skill level.

(7) The "predetermined value" and the channel choice are design choices. MPEP § 2144.04: changing a parameter, or optimizing a result-effective variable, is within the skill of the art absent criticality. The '489 offers no criticality data tying any particular threshold to the result — its own examples use "channel 4" and "channel m" interchangeably.

Teaching-away check: none of the cited references teaches away from the combination. US20090000654A1 (Larankelo) argues for reducing the functions collocated at the module, which a defendant might stretch into a teaching away from adding a mode-dedication function — but Larankelo's concern is the hostile outdoor environment and code-compliance churn for hardware, and the '489's feature adds no hardware, only firmware in the existing microcontroller. That argument will not carry.

---

7. Anticipation-adjacent exposure (worth pleading even in a § 103 answer)

Two of the '489's claims are so close to reference #7 that § 102 should be considered in parallel:

• Claim 4 recites the main program steps — measure/compute per-channel DC power; run/stop generation based on solar-panel DC input power and inverter/AC-powerline conditions; power statistics; diagnostics; unit address; powerline communications; respond to queries. US20110012430A1's claim 24 recites that list in the same order. The '489's own specification footnotes: "the key components, functions, and steps in the interrupt service routine… are described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/837,162."
• Claim 3 / claim 8 recite MFA controllers for the boost converter and MFA optimizers for MPPT — recited in US20110012430A1 claims 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and ¶ [0043].

For a § 103 posture, these are useful as unrebuttable secondary indicia: if claim 4 is anticipated, then any "unexpected results" argument predicated on the main program collapses, leaving only the low-power-mode feature to carry the secondary-considerations load.

---

8. Rebuttal — the strongest non-obviousness arguments, and how they fare

(a) Unexpected results / the 1.5 W data. The '489 asserts each channel can export AC power at only "1.5 W DC at voltage=14V and current=0.11 A," i.e., 0.6% of a 250 W module. Two problems. First, the claimed feature is the dedicated channel, and the benefit of avoiding shutdown is already predicted by the admitted prior art of panel-fed auxiliary supplies — the result is not unexpected so much as the designed consequence. Second, ⚠️ the numbers sit awkwardly with the specification's own premises: the patent states the internal supply needs ≥18 V input because it produces 15 V, and that shut-down occurs when panel voltage falls below 18 V — yet it also asserts continued AC output at 14 V. That is defensible only if the 14 V figure describes the AC-generating channels while the reserved channel sits at >18 V open-circuit. If a secondary-considerations case is to be built on this data, an expert will need to reconcile 14 V vs. 18 V explicitly, and to establish nexus — that the advantage flows from the claimed limitation rather than from the pre-existing 4-channel/MPPT architecture (which is US20110012430A1's).

(b) Long-felt need. The need (low-light shutdown; the 5-minute reconnect penalty) is real and the '489 documents it well. But the need was already identified in US20110012430A1 (which lists partial shading among the problems with centralized inverters) and the industry was already solving it — a long-felt need satisfied by a known device is weak. In re Gershon / MPEP § 716.04.

(c) Commercial success. CyboEnergy's CyboInverter line (CIM-1200, CIM-5000Z) is 4-channel with per-panel MPPT — but that architecture is US20110012430A1 / US 9,093,902 material, not the '489's. Absent a market-share or pricing study isolating the low-power feature, the presumption of nexus does not attach (Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams).

(d) The "teaching away" argument from the AC-tap critique. This is the '489's critique of its own incorporated application. It is not a teaching away from the combination; it is the express motivation for it. Expect this argument to be inverted against the patent owner.

(e) Objective evidence of copying. Not surfaced in the record retrieved.

---

9. Adjacent risks a validity analyst should record

(i) Obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). US20110012430A1/US 8,786,133, US20120212065A1/US 9,093,902, US20120313443A1, US20130002031A1/US 9,331,488, and US20140265584A1/US 9,240,112 share substantially the same specification and the same inventive entity. The '489's independent claims (especially 14 and 10) are close to claims already in that family. ODP is a distinct and often decisive invalidity/defect theory independent of § 103, and the '489 has no terminal disclaimer visible in the record retrieved. This should be run in parallel with the § 103 analysis.

(ii) Claim construction will control the outcome. The earlier section of this analysis noted the WDTX claim-construction decision (6:22-cv-01136-KC, entered 2023-12-20) construing four terms, all in claim 14: "DC power combiner… for combining DC output from all DC-DC boost converters"; "constructed to run the power inverter in normal or low power mode based on calculated DC input power"; "configured to take DC power from a dedicated input channel and its connected solar panel"; and "microcontroller… arranged to measure input voltage and current to calculate DC input power for each channel." I have the terms but not the constructions. Because two of the four terms are the residual-difference limitations identified in § 4 above, the constructions could meaningfully move the § 103 analysis in either direction — a narrow reading of "dedicated" or of "normal or low power mode" could help the patent; a broad one invites Grounds 1–3 straight into claim 14.

(iii) PTAB. IPR2024-00360 (petitioner Altenergy Power System USA, Inc.) appears to involve this patent — the WDTX claim-construction decision was filed as Exhibit 1010 in it. ⚠️ I was unable to retrieve the petition grounds, the institution decision, or any final written decision. I therefore cannot tell you which references the petitioner selected, though on this record the natural § 103 combination would be US20110012430A1 + US20120212065A1/US 9,093,902, with US20130002031A1 for the off-grid claims. Do not treat the absence of that information as absence of the proceeding.

(iv) Litigation overlay. The Google Patents record shows CyboEnergy asserting this patent across WDTX (6:22-cv-00281; 6:22-cv-01136; 1:25-cv-01300), N.D. Cal. (3:21-cv-08534; 5:21-cv-08534; 5:24-cv-08891), and C.D. Cal. (2:21-cv-08216), with later suits against Duracell Power Center (2024-12-10) and Yotta Energy (2025-08-13). A validity challenge built on the applicant's own prior applications is procedurally attractive to defendants, since those references are § 102(e) art and difficult to swear behind.

---

10. Bottom line

On the prior art of this page, US 9,331,489 is highly vulnerable under § 103, and the vulnerability is structural rather than marginal:

1. US20110012430A1 (US 8,786,133) — the '489's own incorporated-by-reference parent — discloses elements (a) through (k) of claim 1 essentially verbatim, the main program of claim 4 essentially verbatim, and the MFA controller/optimizer subject matter of claims 3 and 8.
2. US20120212065A1 (US 9,093,902) discloses the combiner-fed internal DC power supply (element (l)'s first half) in the identical architecture.
3. US20130002031A1 (US 9,331,488) discloses the entire off-grid AC Master/regular off-grid architecture, the load detector with impedance checking, the line-sensing over/under-voltage/current monitoring, the AC-Master synchronization duties, and the combiner-fed internal supply — i.e., claims 6 and 9 minus the mode clause.
4. US20110273022A1 and US8102074B2 supply threshold-triggered, per-channel converter disable and module-powered control electronics.
5. The two residual differences — a threshold-triggered low-power mode, and reserving one channel for the auxiliary supply — are each, on this record, a predictable design choice among a small number of identified solutions, motivated expressly by the shortcomings the '489 itself attributes to the AC-tapped design.

The most probable outcome of a well-run § 103 challenge is that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 fall, with the single/three-phase and grid-or-load dependent claims (2, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16) falling with them as depending from invalid independents, leaving claim 5's specific two-variable state-machine logic as the only limitation with any conceivable argument — and even that is a flowchart of two booleans over subject matter ('430's main program) already disclosed.

---

Confidence and limitations — stated plainly

• High confidence in the disclosure content I quoted for US20110012430A1, US20120212065A1/US 9,093,902, US20130002031A1, US20110273022A1, and US8102074B2 — these quotes come from the retrieved full-text/PDF records.
• Moderate confidence on US20120313443A1 (off-grid family), which I know is the sibling off-grid application but whose full text I did not retrieve in this session.
• Low confidence / title-level only on US20030111103A1, US20100237703A1, US20110084556A1, US20120025618A1, US20120138123A1, and USRE37126E1 — I retrieved their citation records but not their specifications and am not asserting specific disclosure content for them.
• Not retrieved at all: the IPR2024-00360 petition, institution, or final written decision; the actual WDTX constructions; the current status of any 2026 Federal Circuit appeal. My searches surfaced no 2026 CAFC docket for US 9,331,489, but I do not have direct CM/ECF access and cannot treat that as proof of absence.
• Flagged discrepancy: the issue date is reported inconsistently in the record (Google Patents: 2016-05-03; a litigation exhibit: "December 27, 2016"), as noted in the earlier sections. This does not affect the § 103 analysis, which runs from the 2013-03-07 filing date.
• Flagged internal inconsistency in the patent: the 1.5 W/14 V performance data versus the specification's stated ≥18 V requirement for the internal DC supply — relevant because that data is the natural vehicle for a secondary-considerations argument.