US 9332478

US Patent 9,332,478 B2 — Verified Summary

Bibliographic data (confirmed across Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, and USPTO-adjacent records):

Abstract (verbatim):

A method includes transmitting communications information from a first DMA gateway of a DMA gateway communication network to a second DMA gateway of the DMA gateway communication network. The communications information is associated with a communication network that is accessible to the first DMA gateway. The method includes receiving a communication from the second DMA gateway via the DMA gateway communication network. The communication network and the DMA communication network are different. The communication is associated with a destination device that is indicated by the communications information to be served by the communication network that is accessible to the first DMA gateway. The method includes routing the communication to the destination device.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

⚠️ Caveat: The full, numbered claims text was not retrievable in full during this session (the authoritative Google Patents page truncates before the claims section, and the fetched specification text did not include the claims). The patent's Detailed Description enumerates several "particular embodiment" paragraphs that mirror the independent-claim structure. Based on that specification language — which is consistent with the abstract and with the family's other granted patents — the independent claims appear to cover approximately the following subject matter (treat the claim-by-claim mapping as approximate, not verbatim):

1. Method claim (gateway-to-gateway routing). A method in which a first DMA gateway transmits communications information about a network (a DMA server network or a legacy communications network) that the first DMA gateway serves to a second DMA gateway over a DMA gateway communications network; the first gateway later receives from the second gateway a communication destined for a device on the served network and routes that communication to the destination device. Key limitation: the served communication network and the DMA gateway network are different networks.

2. Computer-readable-medium claim (receiving gateway side). A non-transitory storage medium storing instructions causing a processor at a first DMA gateway to receive communications information about a network accessible by a second DMA gateway, store it in memory (e.g., a home DMA register), receive a communication directed to a device served by the second gateway, and route it by relaying it to the second DMA gateway over the DMA gateway communications network.

3. Computer-readable-medium claim (satellite-gateway outbound call). Instructions causing a DMA server, while in a service area of a first DMA gateway (e.g., an orbiting satellite), to receive first routing instructions; to send a first call (received from a mobile device via an integrated wireless transceiver) to the first DMA gateway over a private IP network; the call being placed to a destination device reachable through a legacy communications network accessible via that first DMA gateway.

4. Computer-readable-medium claim (satellite-gateway inbound call). Instructions causing an orbiting satellite to receive a call on a first interface adapted to communicate with a legacy communications network (the call directed to a mobile device served by a first DMA server), and to route the call to that DMA server via a second interface adapted to communicate with a private IP network, where the DMA server includes a wireless transceiver for the mobile device.

5. DMA gateway apparatus claim. A first DMA gateway having a first interface to a legacy communications network, a second interface to a private IP network, and a third interface to a DMA gateway communications network, plus logic to receive legacy-network information from a second DMA gateway (indicating that legacy network is in the second gateway's range) and to forward communication received from a DMA server to the second DMA gateway for placement to a destination on the legacy network. Embodiment: the first DMA gateway is an orbiting satellite.

6. DMA server apparatus claim. A DMA server coupled to a wireless transceiver, with a private-IP interface and a satellite-communications interface, and logic to receive a call from a mobile device via the transceiver and send call information to a DMA gateway that is an orbiting satellite, for placement to a destination on a legacy network accessible via that gateway.

7. Orbiting-satellite apparatus claim. A satellite with a legacy-network interface and a private-IP interface and logic to receive a call via the legacy-network interface (directed to a mobile device served by a DMA server) and route it to the DMA server via the private-IP interface, the DMA server having the wireless transceiver for the device.

CAFC 2026 docket search result

I searched for a Federal Circuit 2026 docket tied specifically to 9,332,478. I did not find any CAFC proceeding citing this exact patent number.

What I did find is a Federal Circuit decision reported April 10, 2026 in which Lemko Corp. lost its bid to revive claims in a "distributed mobile architecture" patent after the Federal Circuit backed a PTAB invalidity finding favorable to Microsoft. However, the underlying PTAB documents I retrieved tie that appeal (Federal Circuit No. 24-2336, Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.) to family members U.S. Patent 7,855,988 ('988) and U.S. Patent 8,310,990 ('990) in IPR2023-00531 — not to the '478 patent itself. Because '478 is a later continuation in the same family (via '988), I cannot rule out indirect relevance, but I have no evidence that '478 was the patent at issue in that appeal. Treat any linkage between the April 2026 CAFC decision and 9,332,478 as unconfirmed.

There is also separate district-court litigation history associated with the '478 family (e.g., Texas Northern District Court case 3:22-cv-00363, per Unified Patents), but no CAFC 2026 docket specifically naming 9,332,478 was found.

Bottom line: For the bibliographic data, abstract, and technical overview above, I have high confidence. For the exact independent-claim text and numbering, and for any 2026 CAFC involvement specific to this patent, I have low-to-medium confidence — the claim language should be verified against the full USPTO claims text (PatentCenter / Global Dossier) before relying on it.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,332,478

Based on searches of the Unified Patents litigation database, district court dockets (N.D. Tex.), and related PTAB records, one principal district-court case is associated with U.S. Patent 9,332,478:

Lemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc.

• Plaintiff(s): Lemko Corporation
• Defendant(s): Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc.
• Jurisdiction / Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (Judge Sam A. Lindsay; Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford through referral "L-BT")
• Case number: 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (docket No. 3:2022cv00363 / gov.uscourts.txnd.359096)
• Filing date: Complaint filed February 14, 2022 (the Unified Patents case list shows February 13, 2022; docket entries reflect February 14, 2022)
• Cause of action: Patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271)
• Patents at issue: Lemko asserted multiple DMA-related patents; the live pleadings describe eight asserted patents (the '763, '414, '988, '409, '111, '980, '478, and '931 patents). The '478 patent description in the pleading ("transmitting communications information from a first DMAG to a second DMAG in a DMAG communication network...") corresponds to U.S. 9,332,478, and Unified Patents links U.S. 9,332,478 to this case.
• Accused products: Microsoft's and Affirmed Networks' products/services centered on Azure Stack Edge (ASE) and Virtual Evolved Packet Core (vEPC) / Azure Operator Nexus. (Note: Microsoft acquired Affirmed Networks in March 2022.)

Outcome / current status:

• Unified Patents currently lists the case status as "Closed."
• However, the most recent substantive docket activity reflects an ongoing case through mid-2025:
  • On June 4, 2025, the court (Judge Lindsay) entered an order accepting the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 94). The motion was granted in part and denied in part: Lemko's contributory patent-infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the motion was otherwise denied (i.e., direct and induced-infringement claims survived). Lemko was not permitted further amendment.
  • Lemko's April 15, 2025 press release confirms the court denied Microsoft's motion to dismiss Lemko's direct and indirect (induced) infringement claims.

Because the Unified Patents status field says "Closed" while the last docket order (June 2025) still resolves motions in a live case, I cannot confirm from the available records whether the case has since been finally terminated (e.g., by settlement, judgment, or stipulation) — the "Closed" flag may reflect a recent termination, but no terminating document or judgment appears in the search results I retrieved.

Related PTAB proceedings (for context)

Microsoft and Affirmed Networks filed inter partes review petitions against Lemko DMA patents, e.g., IPR2023-00529 (U.S. 7,653,414) and IPR2023-00531 (U.S. 7,855,988). I did not find any IPR specifically directed to U.S. 9,332,478 in the available search results, and I do not want to speculate as to one.

Caveats

• I did not locate any other district-court or ITC matter naming U.S. 9,332,478. If additional cases exist, they are not reflected in the sources I searched (Unified Patents, CourtListener, Justia, Patexia, Docket Alarm, and Lemko's own announcements).
• The Unified Patents case-list entry for patent 9,332,478 shows only "Affirmed Networks Inc" as defendant in its summary row, but the actual case caption and docket include both Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. as defendants.
• Best sources to confirm the terminal disposition (if any): PACER / the N.D. Tex. docket for 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT and the CAFC docket if an appeal was filed.

Proceedings overview

Count: 0 AIA trial proceedings on US 9332478. The USPTO Open Data Portal (canonical source for this analysis) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming US 9332478, and independent web searches corroborated that — I found no PTAB petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision directed at this patent number. The only proceeding that surfaced in searches against Lemko's DMA patent family (Microsoft / Affirmed Networks IPRs on the parent and sibling patents) are not against 9,332,478 and are described separately below so they are not mistaken for proceedings on this patent.

Defensive posture: Because no PTAB trial has ever been instituted on 9,332,478, all of its claims remain in force and are PTAB-untested — no claim has been canceled, no claim has been "hardened" by a FWD, and no § 315(e) estoppel attaches to this patent. A defendant facing assertion of 9,332,478 today is not bound by any IPR estoppel and can raise any § 102/§ 103 ground; however, the patent owner (Lemko, now subject to a 2025-03-25 security assignment to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC) has won every PTAB merits decision on the closely related family patents, which is a meaningful warning about how hard this family is to knock out.

No proceeding on US 9332478 — but related family activity you should know about (flagged)

The ODP block is authoritative: there is no PTAB proceeding on US 9332478. Web search did, however, surface a coordinated 2023 PTAB campaign by Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. against Lemko family patents asserted in the same litigation where 9,332,478 was in suit (Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT, N.D. Tex., filed 2022-02-13, per Unified Patents: Closed). Because 9,332,478 is a continuation of the '988 patent challenged in IPR2023-00531 (chain: 7,855,988 → 12/942,642 → 13/648,704 = 9,332,478), these outcomes are highly probative. None of the following is a proceeding on 9,332,478:

Highlights from the record I could verify:

• Judge panel (IPR2023-00529/00531): Frances L. Ippolito, Brian D. Range, and Scott Raevsky; oral hearing held 2024-07-11 (transcript on Docket Alarm). Petitioners were represented by Winston & Strawn (Robert N. Kang, Michael Rueckheim); Lemko by Kramer Levin (James Hannah, Aaron Frankel).
• Grounds on the parent '988 (IPR2023-00531): claims 1, 3–9, and 20 alleged anticipated by U.S. 2007/0021120 ("Flore") and obvious over Flore combined with 3GPP TS 23.002 v7.1.0 (per the Proctor declaration and exhibit lists).
• Outcome pattern: Bloomberg Law (2024-09-04) summarized that the Board found challenged Lemko claims not unpatentable as obvious; Unified Patents docket data shows FWDs in both instituted cases and denial of institution in both others. Per GreyB's case page, IPR2023-00531's status is "Final Written Decision – Appealed" — but I could not confirm a Federal Circuit docket number or disposition in the sources available, so do not treat an appeal as verified beyond that status flag.
• Why no IPR on 9,332,478 despite it being asserted in 3:22-cv-00363: I could not confirm the petitioners' rationale from public sources. Plausible explanations include claim-specific strategy or the one-year § 315(b) bar timing (the family IPRs were filed 2023-02-14/15, right at the deadline from the 2022-02 service), but this is inference, not verified fact.

Strategic summary

Claims of 9,332,478 — CANCELED / SUSTAINED / UNTESTED: Every claim of 9,332,478 is UNTESTED at the PTAB. No AIA petition has been filed against this patent number, no institution decision exists, and no FWD has touched its claims. They are fully in force. The nearest PTAB activity is on the parent '988 patent (whose claim 1 is substantially similar in wording to the '478 abstract/claim language), where the challenged claims survived — the Board held them not unpatentable over Flore + 3GPP TS 23.002. That is a favorable signal for Lemko on overlapping claim scope, but it is not a merits determination on the '478 claims and should not be cited as one.

Estoppel landscape: § 315(e) estoppel is proceeding- and patent-specific. Because no IPR was ever brought on 9,332,478, no petitioner is estopped as to the claims of 9,332,478 — not even Microsoft/Affirmed Networks, who are estopped only as to the claims of the patents they actually challenged ('988, '414) in the district court. A new defendant facing 9,332,478 today has the full universe of § 102/§ 103 prior art available: the Flore / 3GPP TS 23.002 / Waylett / Mauer-type references that failed against the family are not off-limits against the '478 claims, though the Board's family rulings (including its treatment of "distributed mobile architecture" claim construction, argued at the 2024-07-11 hearing) signal that Lemko's constructions will be tough to overcome with the same art. A materially stronger, materially different art combination would be needed.

Pattern signals: Microsoft + Affirmed Networks (the defendants in the now-Closed N.D. Tex. case where 9,332,478 was asserted) ran a four-petition IPR campaign in 2023 against Lemko's DMA family — and lost across the board: two denials of institution and two FWDs sustaining patentability. This is a defensive-aggregator-adjacent pattern only in the sense that Unified Patents' portal tracks the campaign; Unified is not a petitioner here. Lemko has shown it will litigate family validity aggressively through the PTAB and (per GreyB's "Appealed" flag) possibly beyond. The district court case also shows Lemko's pleadings were trimmed (contributory infringement claims dismissed with prejudice, 2025-06-04, Doc. 94), and the case is closed per Unified Patents — check the docket for settlement terms if you are evaluating a license.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant receiving a demand on 9,332,478: The PTAB record on this exact patent is a blank slate. Do not argue "this patent was already tested and survived" — it wasn't. Instead, run a fresh § 102/§ 103 search on the DMA-gateway routing claims, and note that no § 315(e) estoppel constrains you. Be aware, however, that the family FWDs (IPR2023-00529, FWD 2024-08-30; IPR2023-00531, FWD 2024-09-10, both viewable via USPTO PTAB E2E / PTAB decision search and Docket Alarm) show the Board crediting Lemko's "distributed mobile architecture" framework — reuse of the same failed references is unlikely to get you to institution.
• If you are Microsoft, Affirmed Networks, or a privy: Confirm the preclusive effect of the family IPRs and the Closed district court case (3:22-cv-00363) on your specific situation before filing anything on the '478; the "Appealed" flag on IPR2023-00531 means the parent-patent validity fight may still be live at the Federal Circuit — locate that docket before relying on the FWD as final.
• Verify current status before acting: The ODP ingest shows no PTAB case, but the district court litigation involving this patent was active into 2025 (Doc. 94, 2025-06-04) and the ownership/security chain changed on 2025-03-25 (Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC security assignment). Pull the USPTO Assignment database and the N.D. Tex. docket (CourtListener docket 63000037) to confirm who currently controls enforcement and whether any covenant/settlement binds the patent.
• No pending PTAB deadlines apply to 9,332,478 because no proceeding exists; if you file a new IPR, expect the standard timeline — institution decision ~6 months from filing, and a FWD within 12 months of institution under the § 316(a)(11) statutory deadline.

I could not directly query the USPTO Assignment Center database through my available tools, and web searches did not surface reel/frame numbers or correspondent names for this patent. Below I reconstruct the record from the authoritative Google Patents legal-events feed embedded in the full patent text, the Unified Patents litigation portal, and FreePatentsOnline. Where a specific data field (reel/frame, correspondent, execution date) was not retrievable, I say so rather than fabricate it.

Inventors

• ShaoWei Pan — sole named inventor. Employer at time of filing: Lemko Corporation (founder and principal; listed as Kildeer, IL, US on family records). All patent family prosecution in the Lemko DMA portfolio (US 7,855,988, 8,310,990, 8,349,667, etc.) is by the same inventor.
• Unusual-pattern check: not present — there is no multi-inventor roster departing an assignee post-filing. The portfolio is a single-inventor/founder operation, which is a different (and weaker) troll tell than a departing-inventor pattern.

Original assignee

• Lemko Corporation (Itasca, IL, US) is the named assignee on the issued patent (confirmed by FreePatentsOnline and Google Patents legal events).
• Line of business: design and sale of "distributed mobile architecture" (DMA) / femtocell-type cellular infrastructure for rural and remote telephony; network equipment provider.
• Product-shipping status: unclear from available records. Unified Patents classifies Lemko as an "Operating Company" (High-Tech) in its 2022 litigation, which supports operating-company status, but I found no independent evidence of current commercial product shipments.
• Current status: active entity; patent remains in force (adjusted expiration 2029-01-10) and Lemko remains the owner of record subject to a 2025 security interest (below).

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center record for this patent was not fully retrievable in this session (reel/frame numbers and correspondent-of-record names could not be verified). The two recorded events below are those surfaced by the Google Patents legal-events feed (which is drawn from USPTO assignment records). Both are therefore real recorded events, but the reel/frame citations must be verified against the Assignment Center before relying on them.

• Executed (date not retrievable; recorded 2012-10-10) — Reel/frame not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor Interest (see document for details)
  • Assignor: ShaoWei Pan (inventor)
  • Assignee: Lemko Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-company assignment, recorded at the time the continuation application was filed; no fire-sale or reorg character.

• Executed (date not retrievable; recorded 2025-03-25) — Reel/frame not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee: Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as Security Holder
  • Correspondent: not retrievable
  • Context: A security agreement, not a conveyance of title — Lemko remains owner, with a secured party holding a collateral interest. Consistent with patent-backed debt financing/litigation funding, not a transfer-to-asserter.

No other recorded assignments (no mergers, changes of name, releases, or subsequent transfers) were surfaced for this patent. Note: the patent's first enforcement (below) was brought by Lemko itself while it was the unencumbered owner, so no standing-related assignment preceded the suit.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9332478
    2008 : Priority application filed by Lemko
    2012 : Inventor assignment recorded
    2016 : Patent US9332478 issued
    2022 : Lemko sues Affirmed Networks
    2025 : Security agreement to Piccadilly

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only post-issuance event is a 2025-03-25 Patent Security Agreement to "Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as Security Holder." A security agreement does not transfer title; Lemko remains the assignee of record. No "IP Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" LLC has taken ownership. (The entity name suggests a funding vehicle, but the conveyance type alone is dispositive: it is a security interest, not an assignment.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present / unclear. The asserting party in the only known litigation (3:22-cv-00363, N.D. Tex., filed 2022-02-13, closed) is Lemko Corp itself, which Unified Patents codes as an "Operating Company," not an NPE. Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC is not on the classic Acacia/Marathon/IV/Wi-LAN/Mosaid asserter lists I can verify, and no RPX/Unified asserter-directory match for it was found in this session.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / no data. Correspondent-of-record names were not retrievable from the available sources. Without the Assignment Center correspondent data, this signal cannot be assessed; it should be checked directly at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov (search by patent 9332478).

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two recorded events over 13 years: one inventor assignment (2012) and one security agreement (2025). No chained LLC transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The only relevant date pattern runs the wrong direction: the suit (filed 2022-02-13) was brought by the original owner Lemko, and the security agreement postdates the suit by ~3 years (recorded 2025-03-25). No transfer occurred within six months before first suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy proceedings involving Lemko were found.

7. Privateering — not present. No operating company transferred this patent to an NPE to assert against competitors. Lemko asserted in its own name against Affirmed Networks Inc. (and separately pursued IPR appeals against Microsoft on family members '988/'990 in CAFC No. 24-2336 — note: that appeal concerns family patents, not '478 itself, per earlier research).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it remains at Lemko subject to a secured lender's interest.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The record shows the original operating assignee (Lemko Corporation) asserting this patent directly against a market participant (Affirmed Networks Inc., 3:22-cv-00363, N.D. Tex., filed 2022-02-13), with Unified Patents classifying the plaintiff as an "Operating Company." The sole post-issuance recorded event is a 2025-03-25 Patent Security Agreement to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC — a debt-financing event that leaves title with Lemko and is not a transfer to an NPE, a shell, or a defensive aggregator. No shell-entity transfer, cascading chain, pre-suit assignment, bankruptcy, or privateering signal is present. Caveats: I could not verify product shipments, reel/frame numbers, or correspondent identities from the available sources, and the 2025 security interest means enforcement decisions may now be influenced by a secured lender — verify the full record at the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov — search patent 9332478) before relying on this assessment.

I have reached the search-step limit, so I will now answer based on the information retrieved. Below is my best-effort prior-art analysis for US 9,332,478 B2, with explicit statements about what could and could not be verified in this session.

1. Scope and reliability caveats (read first)

• Source of the citation list. The complete, authoritative USPTO citation record (front-page "References Cited," the PTO-1449 forms, and the examiner's search history in the file wrapper) was not directly retrievable in this session. The citation list below comes from the FreePatentsOnline full-text mirror of US 9,332,478 (freepatentsonline.com/9332478.html), which reproduces the patent's "US Patent References" section.
• The retrieved list is truncated. The FreePatentsOnline snippet I obtained shows the reference list beginning mid-way at US 2015/0081812 A1 and cutting off at US 7,856,233 B2. References appearing earlier in the alphabetically/chronologically sorted list (older art, potentially the most important for § 102) and the tail end of the list were not captured. I could not confirm the "Other References" (non-patent literature) section, if any.
• Claims text. As flagged in the earlier patent summary, the full numbered claims of the '478 patent were not retrievable in this session (the Google Patents fetch truncates before the claims; FreePatentsOnline snippets did not surface them). Claim mapping below is therefore tied to the approximate independent-claim structure reconstructed from the specification's "particular embodiment" paragraphs (method claim, receiving-gateway CRM claim, satellite outbound/inbound CRM claims, gateway apparatus claim, DMA-server apparatus claim, orbiting-satellite apparatus claim). Treat claim-number mapping as indicative, not verbatim.
• Statutory framework. The '478 application was filed October 10, 2012 — before the AIA effective date of March 16, 2013 — so pre-AIA § 102 governs. The patent claims priority to July 14, 2008 (via 12/942,642 → 7,855,988). A reference can only anticipate under pre-AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e) if it predates the invention date (presumed to be the effective filing date of the claim, July 14, 2008 for claims adequately supported by the parent disclosure).

2. Confirmed citations appearing on the face of US 9,332,478

A. Lemko / ShaoWei Pan family references (same or overlapping disclosure as '478)

These share the DMA specification and, critically, most claim the same July 2008 priority. Under pre-AIA § 102, a same-family, same-disclosure publication is not anticipatory against claims that are entitled to the July 14, 2008 effective filing date, because it is neither prior in time nor a "prior art" reference for subject matter fully supported in the parent. They were nonetheless cited (typically as part of the IDS/continuation prosecution chain) and would only become § 102 candidates if the '478 claims were held not entitled to the 2008 priority date for some limitation.

B. Third-party references (actual independent prior art candidates)

These are the references an examiner would treat as genuine § 102/§ 103 art — but all confirmed ones post-date July 14, 2008, so with the 2008 priority date intact they are § 103 (obviousness) candidates or § 102 art only for any claim limitation not entitled to the 2008 date.

3. Most relevant prior art overall (ranked)

1. US 2012/0044908 A1 (Spinelli/Cisco; priority 2007-10-24) — if the 2007 priority date is confirmed, this is the only confirmed cited reference that predates the '478 effective filing date and squarely covers gateway interworking/mobile-node routing. It is the strongest § 102(e) anticipation candidate against the gateway apparatus claim (≈ claim 5: legacy-network interface + private-IP interface + DMA-gateway-network interface + forwarding logic) and the method claim (≈ claim 1) to the extent the DMA-gateway network maps to the inter-gateway interface. Recommendation: pull the full Spinelli publication and map element-by-element.
2. US 8,018,907 B2 (Kubler; grant 2011) — best third-party art for distributed, non-hierarchical wireless routing to telephony destinations; § 103 strong, § 102 only if priority is lost.
3. US 2011/0060853 A1 (Pan; the '478's own parent publication) — identical disclosure; dispositive only in a priority-loss scenario.
4. US 2011/0320576 A1 (Lauer) — best art for the satellite/air-to-ground IP relay embodiments (claims 3, 4, 6, 7), on obviousness grounds.

4. What I could not verify

• The full citation list (list truncated in retrieval both at its head — where older, potentially § 102(a)/(e)-relevant references would sort — and its tail) and the "Other References"/NPL section.
• The verbatim claims of '478 (I am relying on the approximate claim structure from the earlier summary).
• Exact filing/priority dates for every reference (e.g., Spinelli's 2007 priority date comes from Unified Patents metadata, not the PTO record, and should be confirmed).
• Whether the examiner placed a § 102 rejection over any specific reference during prosecution (file-wrapper history not retrieved).

Recommended next step: pull the PTO-1449 / front-page "References Cited" from USPTO Patent Center for 13/648,704, and obtain the full text of US 2012/0044908 A1, before relying on any § 102 anticipation conclusion.

I'll ground a few key reference identities before building the § 103 analysis.

The appellant-brief excerpts suggest a different disposition than the prior sections recorded. Let me verify the PTAB/CAFC outcome and the '478 claim text.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 9,332,478 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Mandatory correction to two previously generated sections

Before the analysis, I must flag a material contradiction between the prior sections of this report and what I verified in this session. Per the operating rule to flag contradictions explicitly:

Why this matters for a § 103 analysis: the parent patent's claim 1 — whose text is nearly a mirror image of '478's claim 1 (see §2) — has been adjudicated anticipated by Flore, and that judgment is now final. Anticipation is a fortiori obviousness (In re Baxter Travenol; MPEP 2131). The "family validity is bulletproof" framing in the earlier sections is not supportable.

Also worth noting: the Board's reasoning, as it appears in Lemko's own appellate brief, is that the Board declined to construe "distributed" at all (Appx8–14) and rejected Lemko's negative limitation that a DMA server excludes a legacy network. Because the affirmance is a Rule 36 summary affirmance, it carries no precedential claim-construction weight — a point that cuts in Lemko's favor in a district court, and that I address in §7.

1. The verbatim parent claim — the anchor for the whole analysis

I retrieved the actual text of '988 claim 1 (the parent of '478) from the IPR record:

1. A method, comprising:
[1b] receiving at a first distributed mobile architecture (DMA) gateway communications information for a communications network accessible by a second DMA gateway, the communications information indicating one or more devices accessible by one of a DMA server and a legacy communications network, wherein the first DMA gateway and the second DMA gateway participate in a DMA gateway communications network;
[1c] storing the communications information in a home DMA register of the first DMA gateway;
[1d] receiving a communication at the first DMA gateway for a target device indicated by the communications information to be served by the second DMA gateway; and
[1e] routing the communication from the first DMA gateway to the target device by relaying the communication from the first DMA gateway to the second DMA gateway via the DMA gateway communications network.

Compare the '478 abstract: "transmitting communications information from a first DMA gateway … to a second DMA gateway … receiving a communication from the second DMA gateway … associated with a destination device that is indicated by the communications information to be served by the communication network that is accessible to the first DMA gateway." That is the same four-step gateway-to-gateway protocol with the directionality reversed (outbound advertisement of the first gateway's served network, then inbound delivery of a call for a device on that network). Notably, '988 claim 20 — which recites "the first DMA gateway receives the communications information from the second DMA gateway" — was among the claims held unpatentable over Flore, so Flore was found to disclose the reverse-direction flow as well.

⚠️ Caveat (unchanged from the earlier summary): I again could not retrieve the verbatim '478 claim set (search-step limit). Claim numbering below follows the reconstructed independent-claim map from §"Independent claims" of the patent summary. Treat element mapping as indicative; the substance of the mapping is well grounded because the specification is identical to '988's.

2. Governing law and the level of ordinary skill

Statute: The '478 application was filed 2012‑10‑10 but claims priority to July 14, 2008 (13/648,704 ← 12/942,642 ← 7,855,988). Because the effective filing date precedes March 16, 2013, pre-AIA § 103(a) governs. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) squarely applies.

POSITA — I can state this from the record rather than hypothesize. Petitioner's expert proposed, and Patent Owner's expert expressly adopted, the following, and the Board worked with it:

"Around 2008, a POSA … would have had a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering or an equivalent, as well as two years of industry experience related to telecommunications networks. Such knowledge would encompass the design, architecture, and operations of mobile telecom networks, including gateways, servers, and user devices … and how they interact with other components of a radio access network." (Proctor Decl. ¶56; adopted in Cooklev Decl. ¶21.)

A POSITA here is therefore a telecom-network generalist — not a satellite engineer and not a femto specialist — with working familiarity with 3GPP reference architecture, HLR/VLR mobility management, and inter-system handover.

§ 103(c) point that materially narrows the art: Under pre-AIA § 103(c)(1), subject matter that was commonly owned at the time the invention was made and that qualifies only as § 102(e)/(f)/(g) art is disqualified as prior art for obviousness. The entire Pan/Lemko family cited on the '478 face (US 2011/0060853 A1, US 8,310,990, US 8,359,029, US 8,340,667, US 8,046,420, US 8,036,158, US 7,856,233, US 2013/0130677, etc.) is Lemko-owned. None of it is available for a § 103 combination. That is why the analysis below rests entirely on third-party art.

3. The primary combination: Flore + 3GPP TS 23.002 v7.1.0

3.1 Reference qualification

Note the striking date coincidence: Flore was filed July 14, 2006 — exactly two years to the day before the '478 priority date.

3.2 Element-by-element mapping to '478's independent method claim

The Board's actual findings: "a POSA would have understood that the RNC and AGW described in Flore serve as the 'distributed mobile architecture (DMA) servers' of the asserted claims" and "Flore's Inter-AS Anchor operates as the first DMA gateway and … Flore's SGSN operates as the second DMA gateway" (Proctor Decl. ¶¶79–80, credited by the Board).

3.3 Why a POSITA would combine Flore with 3GPP TS 23.002

The 3GPP reference is not combined to supply an inventive concept — it supplies the express definition of a claim term and the conventional implementation of a known network element, which is the classic permissible combination (MPEP 2144.03; In re Paulsen):

1. Express definitional disclosure. TS 23.002 v7.1.0 states that "the Home Location (HLR) is the location register to which a mobile subscriber is assigned for record purposes such as subscriber information." '478's dependent claims (mirroring '988 claim 9) require "communications register data including at least one of … a portion of the Home Location Register (HLR) data." A POSITA implementing Flore's GPRS-core interworking must consult the 3GPP architecture standard, because the Gn interface, SGSN, and HLR are all 3GPP-defined constructs.
2. Same field, overlapping purpose. Flore expressly seeks to "minimize impact to legacy networks 120 and 140 to interoperate with new networks 130 and 150." The '478 specification states the identical objective: the DMA gateways "enable legacy networks and devices participating in the legacy networks to communicate with devices serviced by one or more of the DMA servers."
3. Reasonable expectation of success. Both references operate over standardized, well-documented 3GPP interfaces and register semantics that were mature by July 2008. There is no unpredictability to overcome.

3.4 Predicted claim mapping

Bottom line: on this combination, '478's method, CRM-side, and core apparatus claims are highly likely obvious, and would very likely also be anticipated — the same result the Board reached on the identical '988 disclosure and the Federal Circuit affirmed.

4. The satellite/private-IP combinations (Flore + Lauer, or Flore + Spinelli)

The '478 claim set adds three satellite-flavored limitations that the mere Flore mapping does not reach:

• Claim ≈3: routing instructions received while the DMA server is in the service area of a DMA gateway that is an orbiting satellite; call sent via private IP network to a destination reachable through a legacy network.
• Claim ≈4/7: an orbiting satellite with a legacy-network interface and a private-IP interface that routes an inbound call to a DMA server.
• Claim ≈6: a DMA server with a private-IP interface and a satellite communications interface, sending call information to a satellite DMA gateway.

4.1 The problem with the reference the earlier section ranked #4

The Prior Art section nominated US 2011/0320576 A1 (Lauer, "air-to-ground IP tunnel in an airborne wireless cellular network"). That reference has a date problem I must flag: it published December 2011 — three years after the '478 priority date. For § 103, a reference must still independently qualify as prior art under § 102. Unless Lauer's own effective filing date predates 2008‑07‑14 (which the record I retrieved does not show, and which is unlikely given its 2011 publication), Lauer is not available as § 103 art against claims entitled to the 2008 priority date. I do not have Lauer's filing date, so I state this as a limitation on the combination, not a conclusion.

4.2 The combination that does work — Flore + Spinelli

Spinelli — US 2012/0044908 A1 / US 8,064,909 B2 (Cisco Technology): "Interworking Gateway for Mobile Nodes." A gateway that (i) terminates a femto gateway function and "acts as a proxy for each femto cell … by aggregating communications from the at least one femto cell and communicating as proxy with a core network on behalf of the at least one femto cell"; (ii) provides a security gateway that "tunnels different protocols over a broadband network"; and (iii) "communicates with other radio access network equipment to provide for a handoff of a mobile node," including "inter-technology handoffs … between macro, femto, and enterprise networks."

Mapping to '478's satellite claims:

Motivation to combine Flore + Spinelli:

1. Same field, same problem, complementary solutions. Both address extending service where macro coverage is inadequate. Spinelli's framing — "the coverage provided by the service provider may not be adequate within the building or in certain areas" — is the femto-scale analogue of the '478 specification's rural-coverage framing. The '478 specification's own stated driver is cost: a conventional MSC/BSC/HLR/VLR system "can cost over $2.0 million" and "may require a minimum of ten thousand users."
2. Predictable variation (KSR factor). Substituting Spinelli's multi-interface interworking gateway (broadband IP on one side, legacy SS7/ATM core interfaces on the other) for Flore's Inter-AS Anchor is the substitution of one known gateway-mediation architecture for another to obtain the same predictable result: bridging a locally-served mobile population into a legacy core network.
3. Known technique improving similar devices in the same way (KSR). Both references teach the identical structural motif — a proximate, multi-interface gateway that proxies on behalf of small, cheaply-deployed radio nodes toward a centralized core. Applying that motif in Flore's inter-system handover context is precisely the "use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way" rationale (MPEP 2143(A)(3)).

Date caveat for Spinelli — important and easy to get wrong. The earlier Prior Art section called Spinelli "the only confirmed cited reference that predates the '478 effective filing date" based on a 2007‑10‑24 priority date from Unified Patents metadata. That is only half the story:

• The Spinelli grant, US 8,064,909 B2, was filed 2008‑10‑27 — after the 7/14/2008 priority date. It is therefore not § 102(e) art as of its own filing date.
• The publication US 2012/0044908 A1 (Feb. 2012) is far too late for § 102(a)/(b).
• Spinelli qualifies as § 102(e) art only if the specific disclosure relied upon is carried in the 2007‑10‑24 provisional and thus entitled to that date. That must be confirmed against the provisional and the priority claim in the '909 file wrapper.

So Spinelli is usable, but its date footing is contingent, not automatic. Verify before relying on it.

5. Secondary combination: Flore + Kubler (and why it is weaker)

Kubler — US 8,018,907 B2, "Hierarchical data collection network supporting packetized voice communications among wireless terminals and telephones" (granted 2011‑09‑13). It discloses a multi-hop network of wireless terminals routing packetized voice among wireless terminals and to telephones, with seamless handover as terminals move between access points.

Motivation: combine Flore's legacy-interface gateway interworking with Kubler's packetized-voice routing between wireless nodes and external telephones, to extend voice reach across a self-organizing wireless access layer. Both are wireless-telephony routing references; both address continuity of service as the mobile node moves.

Why it is the weaker partner, and the trap to avoid: Kubler is expressly hierarchical, and '478's own specification frames the invention as a departure from hierarchical MSC/SGSN hub architectures ("controlling logic can be distributed and de-centralized"; peer-to-peer connections between DMA servers). If the district court adopts Lemko's construction (DMA = distributed call-routing functionality, excluding centralized hubs) — the construction the Board declined to reach and the Federal Circuit affirmed only by Rule 36 — Kubler becomes inapposite rather than helpful. Kubler is also date-contingent (its grant is 2011; its § 102 status depends on its continuation-chain priority, which I did not verify). Use Kubler only as a tertiary reference for generic packetized-voice-over-wireless routing, not as a primary gateway reference.

6. Motivation-to-combine summary (the KSR/MPEP rationales, consolidated)

Any of these is independently sufficient to support a § 103 rejection (MPEP 2143(A)):

Teaching-away response. Lemko's only serious § 103 rebuttal is that Flore (and Kubler) teach hierarchical, centralized architectures and so teach away from "distributed." Two responses: (i) the Board expressly rejected that the claims require distributed call-routing functionality or peer-to-peer connections — "the claimed references to 'DMA' do not require the ability to route calls or peer-to-peer connections" — and the Federal Circuit affirmed; (ii) a reference teaches away only if it criticizes, discredits, or discourages the claimed approach (In re Fulton). Disclosing a centralized architecture is not a criticism of a distributed one.

7. Objective indicia and the realistic defense posture

Objective indicia. I found no evidence of nexus-backed secondary considerations for '478 (no unexpected results, no licensed-industry praise, no copying record). The "rural economics" narrative in the specification is the motivation to make the invention, not evidence of non-obviousness. Any commercial-success argument is further weakened by the 2022 N.D. Tex. litigation posture and the 2025 security agreement to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC.

What genuinely favors '478 — and it is not nothing:

1. '478's own claims were never adjudicated. The FWD invalidated '988 claims 1, 3–9, 20 only. IPR estoppel under § 315(e) does not attach to '478, and no issue-preclusion runs to claims never litigated.
2. Rule 36 affirmances carry no precedential claim construction. The Federal Circuit's April 10, 2026 affirmance is a one-line Rule 36 disposition with no opinion. The Board's refusal to construe "distributed" is therefore not binding precedent, and a district court applying Phillips could adopt Lemko's "distributed ≠ hierarchical" construction — which would materially weaken every Flore-based combination.
3. '478's independent claim 1 is a transmit-direction claim, not identical to '988 claim 1. If Lemko can show the '478 claim set differs materially (e.g., by requiring the served network and the DMA gateway network to be different networks, as the abstract states), the mapping must be re-run. Flore's Inter-AS Anchor does sit between two distinct networks (E-UTRAN 130 and UTRAN 120/GPRS 140), so I do not expect this to save the claim — but it is the right place to look.
4. The satellite claims (≈3, 4, 6, 7) are the softest spot for the challenger on this record. Flore does not disclose an orbiting-satellite gateway or a private-IP interface, and the only satellite-adjacent reference surfaced (Lauer) appears too late to qualify as § 102 art against the 2008 priority date. A challenger needs pre-July-2008 airborne/satellite cellular IP-relay art — e.g., the 1990s–2000s airborne cellular and satellite-IP-tunnel literature — not Lauer. This is the single highest-value gap to fill.

8. Verdict

The core takeaway: the previously generated sections told you Lemko won the family validity fight and that this patent is "hard to knock out." That is now contradicted by the primary record. Claims 1, 3–9 and 20 of the identical-specification parent patent were held anticipated by Flore, and that judgment was affirmed. '478's method and gateway claims are therefore highly exposed under § 103 on the Flore + 3GPP TS 23.002 and Flore + Spinelli combinations. The genuine remaining defensive value in the '478 claim set lies in its satellite/orbiting-gateway limitations — and only because the reference nominated for that purpose (Lauer) appears to be too late to qualify as § 102 art.

Recommended verification steps before relying on any of this: (1) pull the verbatim '478 claim set from USPTO PatentCenter for 13/648,704; (2) confirm whether US 2012/0044908 A1's relied-upon disclosure is supported in the 2007‑10‑24 provisional; (3) confirm the filing/priority dates for Lauer (US 2011/0320576 A1) and Kubler (US 8,018,907 B2); (4) obtain the FWD's ground table to determine whether the Board reached the Flore + 3GPP TS 23.002 obviousness ground or disposed of everything on anticipation alone; and (5) locate the third Microsoft/Affirmed petition against US 8,310,990 — its number and outcome were not resolved in this session and it appears to be a further continuation in the same chain.