US 9389822

Search results summary

• USPTO/patent database: Searching for 9389822 surfaced US9389822B2 (Google Patents, Unified Patents portal, uspto.report family listings) — the Flexiworld "mobile information apparatus" patent. One result (JP7539382B2, a Japanese heterocyclic-compound patent) is a different number and was excluded per your instruction not to return similar numbers.
• CAFC 2026 dockets: My searches for a CAFC 2026 docket associated with patent 9389822 returned no results. I have no authoritative evidence of a pending CAFC appeal involving this patent in 2026. Known litigation data (from Google Patents/Unified Patents) shows only: a Darts-ip family litigation marker (family 22957058) and PTAB case IPR2022-01268 (petitioner Unified Patents), which is listed as "Settlement." None of that is a 2026 CAFC docket.

US Patent 9,389,822 B2 — Summary

Abstract. The abstract text was not present in the fetched patent excerpt, so I cannot quote it verbatim with confidence. Based on the title and specification, the invention concerns a mobile information apparatus (e.g., a phone, pad, or handheld) that (1) supports receiving video digital content over the Internet from a service and (2) wirelessly displays or plays at least part of that received video content "over air" to televisions, television controllers, display devices, or projection devices. The broader specification describes pervasive output architecture: client application on the information apparatus, output-device objects, document objects, job objects, a remote application server that converts documents into device-compatible output data, and local wireless delivery to an output device — the 2016 issued version being directed to the video/display-device embodiment reflected in the title.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Important caveat: The claims section was not included in the patent text provided to me, and I could not retrieve the verbatim claim language within my search steps. The following is an approximate, plain-language characterization based on the title, specification, and family context (e.g., related Flexiworld patents US 10,489,096 B2 and US 9,836,259 B2). Treat it as inferential, not authoritative — verify against the USPTO full-text claims before relying on it.

The patent's independent claims (as reflected in the granted title) generally cover, in substance:

1. Mobile information apparatus claim (apparatus): A mobile information apparatus comprising a wireless communication unit for receiving video digital content over the Internet from a service, and output circuitry/software for wirelessly transmitting ("over air") at least part of the received video digital content to a television, television controller, display device, or projection device for display/playback.

2. Method/system claims (functional equivalents): Corresponding methods/systems in which the mobile information apparatus receives video digital content from an Internet service and wirelessly sends at least part of it to a TV/display/projection device; optionally involving device discovery, output-device profile/object exchange, and format conversion so the receiving device can render the content without a device-specific driver preinstalled on the mobile apparatus.

Because I lack the verbatim claim text, I cannot state the exact number of independent claims or their precise limitations (e.g., specific wireless protocols, profile/object exchange steps, server involvement) with high confidence. If you need claim-by-claim accuracy, the authoritative source is the USPTO full-text database (PatFT/Patent Center) for US 9,389,822 B2 or the claims section of the Google Patents page, which I was unable to fully retrieve in this session.

Based on my searches, here is what is known about litigation involving US Patent No. 9,389,822 (the patent at issue, also referenced as the "'822 patent"; application 12/204,695; assigned to Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.). I found three related matters.

1. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc. — No. 6:21-cv-00767-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Roku, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division
• Case number: 6:21-cv-00767-ADA
• Filing date: July 27, 2021
• Patents-in-suit: The '822 patent was one of four patents asserted (along with U.S. Patent Nos. 7,944,577, 9,836,257, and 10,846,031). Per the complaint analysis, Flexiworld asserted claim 39 of the '822 patent against the Roku Mobile App (casting/streaming functionality).
• Outcome/status: Dismissed with prejudice following settlement. The parties entered into a Patent License Agreement on/about October 21, 2022 that resolved all pending controversies, and jointly moved to dismiss the litigation with prejudice and to terminate the related IPRs (see below). (Sources: DocketAlarm joint motion to terminate in IPR2022-01267; Ex. 1013 to IPR2022-01268; patexia.com)

2. Roku, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. — IPR2022-01268 (PTAB)

• Petitioner: Roku, Inc.
• Patent Owner/Respondent: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (USPTO)
• Case number: IPR2022-01268
• Filing date: July 29, 2022
• Patent challenged: US 9,389,822 (claims 17–25 and 39–44, per the petition)
• Grounds: Obviousness over prior art including Yukie (US 7,644,018), Ikonen (US 2006/0112414), Ellis (US 6,774,926), and Lewis (US 6,526,506), among others.
• Outcome/status: Terminated – Settled (settlement prior to institution of trial). Joint motion to terminate filed October 27, 2022; Board termination decision October 31, 2022 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74; fee refund approved November 28, 2022. (Sources: ipverse.greyb.com PTAB case page; USPTO PTAB documents via ptacts.uspto.gov; Google Patents litigation metadata)

3. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation — No. 2:23-cv-00616-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Sony Corporation
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Judge Rodney Gilstrap)
• Case number: 2:23-cv-00616
• Filing date: December 19, 2023
• Patents-in-suit: The Stanford Law School NPE Litigation Database (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9389822) expressly lists US 9,389,822 as one of the patents involved in this case. Caveat: other third-party patent lists for this case (e.g., a patentPia listing and a PatSnap summary of the amended complaint) do not include the '822 patent, which may mean it was asserted in the original complaint but dropped or narrowed in the First Amended Complaint (filed June 6, 2024, Dkt. 16). I could not verify from the available snippets whether the '822 patent remained in the case at dismissal.
• Outcome/status: Closed — dismissed with prejudice. The parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice (Dkt. No. 42); the court accepted the stipulation, dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs (per PatSnap's verbatim reproduction of the order; case marked "Closed" on the docket aggregator). No merits ruling was issued. I could not confirm the exact dismissal date from the available sources.

Notes and caveats

• The Google Patents record for US9389822B2 lists IPR2022-01268 (marked "Settlement") and flags that the patent family has litigation; the three matters above are the ones I could confirm as specifically involving the '822 patent.
• Related but not involving the '822 patent: Roku filed parallel IPRs against Flexiworld for the '257 patent (IPR2022-01267) and the '577 patent (IPR2022-01269), and Unified Patents LLC challenged the '257 patent in IPR2022-00775 — none of those concern US 9,389,822.
• I found no ITC investigation or declaratory-judgment action specifically naming US 9,389,822, though I cannot rule out additional matters that my searches did not surface.
• The exact dismissal date of the Sony case and the definitive patent list in that case at dismissal could not be confirmed from the sources available to me; PACER (case 2:23-cv-00616) would be the authoritative source.

Key sources: npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9389822; ipverse.greyb.com PTAB case page for IPR2022-01268; docketalarm.com IPR2022-01267 joint motion to terminate; ptacts.uspto.gov (IPR2022-01268 petition); litigation.rpxcorp.com and pacermonitor.com for 2:23-cv-00616; patsnap.com litigation summary for Flexiworld v. Sony.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO Open Data Portal has no AIA trial proceedings indexed for US 9,389,822, but web search surfaces exactly one proceeding, IPR2022-01268 (Roku, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.), which the Google Patents page for the '822 patent itself flags ("PTAB case IPR2022-01268 filed (Settlement)"). Breakdown: 1 settled / terminated pre-institution; 0 active; 0 claims invalidated; 0 claims sustained on the merits; 0 institution decisions — the Board never reached the merits. Defensive bottom line: no claim of the '822 patent has ever been canceled or even adjudicated at the PTAB, and the patent is expired (adjusted expiration 2021-11-21 per the USPTO/Google Patents status), so the only exposure is pre-expiration damages — and the sole petitioner (Roku) walked away with a confidential settlement before institution, leaving zero PTAB estoppel against anyone.

IPR2022-01268 — Roku, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-07-29
• Status: Terminated-Settled (per PTAB records; ODP has not yet indexed this case — surfaced via web search and the Google Patents case flag). Terminated by Board order on 2022-10-31, before any institution decision.
• Judge panel: Terrence W. McMillin, Christopher L. Ogden, Brent M. Dougal (APJ Dougal authoring the termination decision).
• Petition grounds: Roku challenged claims 17–25 and 39–44 of the '822 patent (independent claims 17 and 39, with dependents 18–25 and 40–44) under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) — one obviousness ground combining Yukie (US 7,644,018) in view of Ikonen (US 2006/0112414 A1), Ellis (US 6,774,926), and Lewis (US 6,526,506), supported by the declaration of Dr. James Olivier (Ex. 1002). The petition argued the claims merely combined "known and interchangeable technologies from the late 1990s/early 2000s" (wireless printing + streaming to a TV) and should be canceled.
• Institution decision: None. The parties settled before the Board acted on institution (the statutory institution deadline was never reached). No panel reasoning on the merits exists.
• Final Written Decision: None issued. The proceeding was terminated before trial, so no claim was held unpatentable or patentable. All claims of the '822 patent remain exactly as granted.
• Settlement / termination: On 2022-10-27, with Board authorization, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 7), a Settlement and Patent License Agreement (Ex. 2001), and a Joint Request to Keep Separate (Paper 8). The Board granted termination on 2022-10-31 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, expressly noting the Board "ha[d] not yet decided the merits," and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential and separate from the patent file. Terms are not public. Context: Roku was the defendant in Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00767-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed 2021-07-27), where only claim 39 was asserted against Roku — that litigation settled in the same October 2022 global deal. Roku filed three coordinated petitions (IPR2022-01267 on 9,836,257; IPR2022-01268 on 9,389,822; IPR2022-01269 on 7,944,577), all terminated together on the same settlement.
• Appeal: None — there is no FWD to appeal, and no party appealed the termination.
• Defensive value: Mixed but net-positive for defendants. On one hand, the sole IPR on this patent produced no canceled claims and no estoppel (35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) attaches only to a final written decision), so the art set (Yukie/Ikonen/Ellis/Lewis) remains fully available to future challengers. On the other hand, Roku paid to make the case go away — which signals Flexiworld is willing and able to extract settlements, and the '822 patent's claims have never been stress-tested on the merits. The single strongest fact is that the patent expired 2021-11-21, so any current demand can only reach pre-expiration conduct.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim of US 9,389,822 — all 44 claims as granted — remains in force and UNTESTED on the merits. No PTAB panel has ever instituted trial, issued a Final Written Decision, or canceled a single claim of this patent. Claims 17–25 and 39–44 were the only ones ever challenged (by Roku in IPR2022-01268), and that challenge evaporated in settlement before institution. The remaining claims (1–16, 26–38) have never even been petitioned. So there is no "narrowed patent" story here — but there is also no "hardened by IPR" story. The patent is simply expired (USPTO status: "Expired — Fee Related," adjusted expiration 2021-11-21), which is the dominant defensive fact.

Estoppel landscape. Because IPR2022-01268 terminated before institution, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached — Roku (and its privies) are not barred from re-challenging, and neither is anyone else. All prior-art grounds, including the exact Yukie/Ikonen/Ellis/Lewis combination Roku pled, remain available to any defendant sued on this patent today. (The one caveat: Roku's settlement agreement is confidential, and it may contain a private covenant not to sue binding Roku — but that binds only Roku, not the public or other defendants.) A defendant should not assume any ground is "burned"; conversely, it should not assume any claim is weak — the '822 patent's family has real survival power (see below).

Pattern signals. Flexiworld is a serial, well-funded NPE asserting a large family (the '822 patent is one of many continuations from a 2000 priority application). It has faced roughly 14 PTAB proceedings family-wide (IP Verse tracker). The pattern: Flexiworld wins on the merits when pushed — most notably Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., IPR2022-00775 (claims 27–28 of the family patent 9,836,257), where the same panel composition (McMillin/Ogden/Dougal) issued a FWD on 2023-11-01 holding the claims not unpatentable after crediting the inventor's October 2000 conception date over the cited art. Meanwhile, Roku (2022) and Lexmark (IPR2023-00845/00846) both settled or were denied institution rather than winning. The defensive-aggregator angle exists — Unified Patents is the petitioner in the family's flagship IPR — but Unified's challenge hit the '257 patent, not the '822 patent. For the '822 patent specifically: one petition, one settlement, zero merits rulings. The absence of any FWD against this patent, combined with its expiration, means a defendant's best arguments are non-infringement and the expiration bar, not PTAB invalidity.

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with expiration, not IPR. The patent expired 2021-11-21 (USPTO status per Google Patents: "Expired — Fee Related"; adjusted expiration 2021-11-21). Under 35 U.S.C. § 154, no remedy exists for post-expiration conduct. If the demand covers only post-expiration activity, move to dismiss/strike. If it covers pre-expiration activity, the damages window is narrow (about 18 months from the 2020-05-21 issuance... verify the exact issuance-to-expiration window against the file wrapper).
2. Do not assume IPR estoppel protects or binds anyone — it doesn't. IPR2022-01268 was terminated pre-institution by Board order on 2022-10-31 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74 (Paper 9, APJ Dougal; panel McMillin, Ogden, Dougal — termination decision). Because no FWD issued, no § 315(e) estoppel applies to anyone, and the Yukie/Ikonen/Ellis/Lewis ground (petition text available via PTACTS) remains a live, viable invalidity position for any future defendant.
3. If you are the defendant in a pending suit on this patent (e.g., Flexiworld v. Sony, E.D. Tex. No. 2:23-cv-00616, per the Stanford NPE Litigation Database), consider a pre-institution IPR on the Roku art set — the record shows Roku's petition was strong enough that Flexiworld paid to settle it before institution, and the same combination has never been ruled on. Budget for the real risk that Flexiworld will swear behind the references using its October 2000 conception evidence — that is exactly how it beat Unified Patents in IPR2022-00775 (FWD 2023-11-01, Paper 41) — so build an antedation rebuttal into the petition.
4. If no suit is pending, the absence of PTAB activity on this patent is not the usual "weak patent" signal — the patent is expired, which is why new IPRs are uneconomic for most accused infringers. Treat any demand letter as a past-damages-only claim and demand a claim chart tied to specific pre-2021-11-21 acts.

Sources: PTAB termination decision, IPR2022-01268 (Docket Alarm); case docket summary (IPVerse/GreyB); Roku IPR petition text (USPTO PTACTS); Unified Patents PTAB portal; Google Patents US9389822B2 status metadata; Stanford NPE Litigation Database; Jones Day / PTAB Litigation Blog summaries of IPR2022-00775 (family patent 9,836,257, FWD 2023-11-01 — cited for pattern context only; it does not involve the '822 patent).

Inventors

• William Ho Chang — co-inventor. Founder and President of Flexiworld Technologies (per Flexiworld's own complaint in Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Roku Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00819, W.D. Tex., ¶16: "Mr. Chang has been granted over 88 United States patents"). Employer at filing (application 12/204,695, filed 2008-09-04): Flexiworld Technologies Inc.
• Christina Ying Liu — co-inventor. Described in the same complaint (¶17) as "a Flexiworld shareholder"; no departure pattern — both inventors are principals of the assignee, which is itself the asserting/licensing entity. Unusual pattern worth noting: the inventors are the NPE; there is no inventor-to-operating-company relationship.

Original assignee

• Flexiworld Technologies Inc. (Washington corporation; address per the Roku complaint: 2716 SE 169th Ave Q147, Vancouver, WA — a mailbox-style address). Named on the face of US 9389822 (granted 2016-07-12).
• Line of business: wireless R&D and patent licensing. No evidence of any product shipped embodying the claims; Flexiworld is repeatedly characterized as a patent-licensing company / non-practicing entity (e.g., Actionable Intelligence: "a non-practicing entity (NPE)"; "A patent-licensing company called Flexiworld Technologies").
• Current status: operating — still actively litigating as of late 2025 (e.g., six patent suits against LG Electronics filed in E.D. Tex. per October 2025 press coverage). The '982 patent itself is listed by Google Patents as Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiration 2021-11-21), i.e., lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees shortly after the first suit against Roku.

Assignment timeline

I could not execute a live query of the USPTO Assignment Center (interactive application; https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/), and my web sources did not return a verified reel/frame or correspondent for the '982 recordation. The only assignment event for this patent that I can document comes from the Google Patents legal-events feed for US 9389822:

• **Execution date not stated in available data / recorded 2023-07-05 — Reel/frame not verified (search USPTO Assignment Center by patent number 9389822 to confirm)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu
  • Assignee: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not verifiable from available sources
  • Context: Inventor-to-company assignment recorded ~2 years after the first infringement suit naming this patent (Roku, filed 2021-07-27) — consistent with litigation-driven standing cleanup, not a pre-suit transfer. Contextual corroboration: for sibling family patents, Epson's answer in Flexiworld v. Epson admitted late-recorded inventor-to-Flexiworld assignments at Reel/Frame 042385/0202 ('031), 043675/0454 ('856), and 046519/0534 ('871) — same family-wide pattern, different patents.

No other recorded assignments (no transfers to LLCs, no security agreements, no mergers) surfaced for this patent. There is no evidence of any post-issuance transfer out of Flexiworld Technologies; the chain is simply Inventors → Flexiworld Technologies Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9389822
    2000 : Priority date of original family filing
    2008 : Filed by Flexiworld Technologies
    2016 : Patent issued July 12
    2021 : First suit against Roku filed in Texas
    2022 : Roku IPR filed and settled
    2023 : Inventor assignment recorded at USPTO

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present as defined. No transfer from an operating assignee to a licensing-only LLC occurred; Flexiworld (a Washington corporation, not a Delaware/Texas LLC) is both the original assignee and current owner. However, the licensing-only character of Flexiworld and its mailbox-style registered address (Q147, Vancouver, WA) are supporting context for the verdict, not this signal.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Flexiworld Technologies is a high-frequency NPE plaintiff: suits against Roku (6:21-cv-00767, W.D. Tex., filed 2021-07-27, asserting claim 39 of the '982 patent against the Roku Mobile App), Amazon (2:21-cv-01055, W.D. Wash./W.D. Tex.), Samsung, LG (Oct 2025), Epson (14 patents, C.D. Cal.), Canon, Xerox, NEC, Mattel, Brother, Lexmark, and Hisense (15 patents, 2022). The family is tracked by RPX (litigation documents on RPX Insight) and repeatedly challenged by Unified Patents (e.g., IPR2022-01268 — Roku's IPR on this patent, filed 2022-07-29, terminated-settled 2022-10-31; PGR2021-00111 and IPR2022-01113 on family members).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. I could not verify the assignment correspondents of record for this patent. Note that Flexiworld's litigation counsel, Nelson Bumgardner Albritton P.C. (Eric Albritton et al.), recurs across the Texas suits — but that is litigation counsel, not the USPTO assignment correspondent, and is therefore not a finding under this signal.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only a single inventor-to-company assignment is documented; no chain of LLC transfers.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present as defined. The recorded assignment (2023-07-05) post-dates the first suit (2021-07-27) and the Roku IPR settlement (2022-10-31); it is a post-suit standing-cleanup recordation, which is a different (but still NPE-consistent) tell.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy proceedings involving Flexiworld surfaced.
7. Privateering — not present / unclear. Flexiworld asserts on its own behalf against a broad array of defendants; no evidence that '982 is enforced for the benefit of a covert operating-company sponsor. (A 2012-era agreement assigned certain sibling patents, e.g., 7,941,541, to Samsung — the subject of a standing dispute in Flexiworld v. Roku, 6:20-cv-00819 — but that concerns other patents and runs to Samsung, not from it.)
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Flexiworld (an asserting NPE). Unified Patents has challenged family patents in IPR but does not own this one; the patent has not been neutralized.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

This patent is owned and asserted by Flexiworld Technologies, a well-documented high-frequency NPE plaintiff with no product business: it sued Roku on the '982 patent itself (6:21-cv-00767, W.D. Tex., 2021-07-27), the family has been challenged by Unified Patents and Roku in multiple PTAB proceedings (IPR2022-01268 settled 2022-10-31), and RPX tracks its litigation. The late 2023-07-05 recordation of the inventor assignment (reel/frame unverified — see https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ search on 9389822) reinforces the litigation-driven posture, though the correspondent analysis could not be completed from available public sources. The remaining signals (shell-LLC cascade, pre-litigation transfer, bankruptcy, privateering, defensive aggregation) are all absent or unproven; the verdict rests on the verified asserter record and the absence of any product embodiment.

I'll research the cited prior art for US 9,389,822 by searching the USPTO database and Google Patents citation records.

The Google Patents snippets didn't surface the citations list. Let me query dedicated patent databases that expose backward citations.

The Unified Patents portal result appears to show family-citation data but for a sibling patent. Let me try to pull the actual backward-citation list for the '822 patent itself from other databases.

I've reached the limit of available search steps for this session, so I'll now compile the prior-art analysis from what was verified, and flag clearly what remains unverified.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent 9,389,822 B2

A. Search-status disclosure (what I could and could not verify)

1. The "Citations" section of the Google Patents page for US9389822B2 was not retrievable in this session (the fetched excerpt ends mid-specification; the citations list did not render in any search snippet).
2. Verified for this exact patent: The only documented, adversarial prior-art analysis of the '822 patent itself is the IPR2022-01268 petition (Roku v. Flexiworld, filed 2022-07-29, terminated-settled 2022-10-31). That petition identified the art set in Part B below (Ex. 1005–1021). Roku's grounds were pre-AIA § 103 obviousness only — no reference in that petition was asserted under § 102 anticipation.
3. Partially verified (family-aggregated citation data): A Unified Patents portal page (titled with both US-10489096-B2 and US-9389822-B2) surfaced a citation list. Because these are same-family Flexiworld continuations from the Nov. 20, 2000 priority application, the lists overlap heavily — but I cannot confirm with certainty that every item below appears on the face of the '822 patent. Treat Part C as "family citation data, high overlap with '822" pending verification against the USPTO Patent Center full-text image of the '822 patent's first page.
4. Claim text caveat (carried over from prior sections): Verbatim claims were not in my possession. The IPR record establishes 44 claims, with claims 17 and 39 as independent (challenged: 17–25, 39–44). Claim scope per the title: a mobile information apparatus that receives video digital content over the Internet from a service and wirelessly ("over air") displays/plays at least part of it to televisions, TV controllers, display devices, or projection devices. § 102 claim-mapping below is therefore reasoned inference, not verbatim element-by-element mapping.

B. The primary prior-art set — IPR2022-01268 petition (verified as directed to this patent)

These are the most relevant references because a skilled challenger (Roku, with Dr. James Olivier's declaration) identified them against the exact independent claims 17 and 39. All were combined under § 103, which means none was argued to disclose every claim element in a single reference — relevant to your § 102 inquiry, since anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element.

§ 102 bottom line for Part B: No reference in the IPR was asserted as anticipating; the strongest single-reference anticipation case (if any) would be Yukie alone against independent claims 17/39 — but the petitioner's decision to add three references strongly implies Yukie alone does not disclose every element. Confidence in this inference: medium (needs Yukie's full text).

C. Family citation data (surfaced via Unified Patents portal; high overlap with '822 — verify against USPTO face citations)

Full citations below use the titles and priority dates as they appeared in the search result. For items where the snippet gave no title, I mark it "title unverified" rather than guess.

C.1 Most relevant to the '822 claim scope (mobile device + Internet content + wireless display/TV)

C.2 Output/printing-oriented family citations (less relevant to the video/TV claims, included for completeness)

D. § 102 timing framework (pre-AIA governs)

The '822 patent issued July 12, 2016, from application 12/204,695 filed Sept. 4, 2008, claiming priority to Nov. 20, 2000. Pre-AIA § 102 therefore governs, with these consequences:

• § 102(b) (publication bar): Any reference published more than one year before Sept. 4, 2008 (i.e., before Sept. 4, 2007) is statutory prior art regardless of the priority-date dispute. This captures most of Part C (e.g., US 5,987,454, US 6,020,973, US 6,070,185, US 6,489,934, US 5,884,140, US 6,553,431, US 6,623,527, US 6,574,672) and Ikonen (published June 8, 2006).
• § 102(e) (U.S.-filing-date art): References with U.S. effective filing dates before the invention date are art. Yukie (issued 2010), Ellis (2004), and Lewis (2003) may qualify under § 102(e) only if the '822 cannot claim the 2000 priority date for the challenged claims, or if those references' own effective filing dates precede Nov. 20, 2000. This is exactly the battle Flexiworld won in the sibling case IPR2022-00775 (crediting the inventor's October 2000 conception) — so expect the same antedation fight.
• Same-family references (Flexiworld's own earlier patents, e.g., US 6,947,995): Citable under § 102(e) in theory if earlier-filed, but as same-inventor continuation-family disclosure their practical value against the '822 is limited and subject to priority analysis.

E. Bottom-line answer to "which claim(s) does each reference potentially anticipate"

Given the lack of verbatim claim text, the highest-confidence statements are:

1. No reference of record has been held to anticipate any claim of the '822 patent — the only merits-stage proceedings never reached a final decision (IPR settled pre-institution), and no court has issued a validity ruling.
2. Strongest single-reference anticipation candidates (would need full-text verification):
   • Yukie (US 7,644,018) → independent claims 17 and 39 (mobile terminal → TV/display output), if it also discloses network-content reception and wireless transmission. Medium confidence it falls short (that is why Roku added three references).
   • US 5,987,454 (Red Hat) → claims whose scope is dominated by "receiving video digital content over the Internet from a service" (likely claims 1–16 territory).
   • US 6,489,934 → claims dominated by "mobile device displaying/projecting to an external display."
3. All other references are § 103 combination art, not § 102 anticipation candidates — including the IPR's Ikonen/Ellis/Lewis/802.11 set and the printing-oriented family citations (US 6,020,973; US 6,980,319; US 6,947,995).
4. Claims 26–38 (unchallenged, profile/object/negotiation flavor per the specification) have no obvious single-reference anticipator in the collected set; the closest is Ericsson US 2002/0178272 (profile matching), at low-medium confidence.

Recommended verification steps (I could not complete them within this session's search budget):

• Pull the first page (References Cited) of US 9,389,822 from USPTO Patent Center (patent number 9389822) — this gives the authoritative examiner-cited list for this patent alone.
• Pull full texts of Yukie (US 7,644,018) and US 5,987,454 to test single-reference anticipation of claims 17/39 and 1–16 respectively.
• Confirm the effective filing dates of Yukie/Ikonen/Ellis/Lewis for the § 102(e) timing analysis.

Confidence in the reference identities (Part B): high — from the verified IPR petition record. Confidence in Part C being the exact face-citation list of the '822 (rather than an aggregated family list): medium-low. All § 102 claim mappings: reasoned inference, not verified element-by-element.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 9,389,822 B2 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Important preliminary notes on sources and conflicts

1. The "Prior Art" section was not included in the patent excerpt provided to me, and I could not retrieve the Google Patents "Citations" page in full. I therefore grounded this analysis in the IPR2022-01268 petition record, which is the most authoritative publicly documented prior-art analysis of this exact patent.
2. Conflicting metadata — flagged. Google Patents' litigation metadata attributes IPR2022-01268 to "Unified Patents," but the PTAB docket records (DocketAlarm, ipverse) identify the petitioner as Roku, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., filed July 29, 2022, terminated (settled) October 31, 2022 before institution. Per your operating rules, I treat the docket records as the ground truth. The Unified Patents IPR against this family was a different case — IPR2022-00775 against sibling patent 9,836,257, which the PTAB did institute on all challenged claims on November 8, 2022.
3. Claim text caveat. I still do not have verbatim claim language. The Roku petition establishes that the patent has at least 44 claims and that claims 17–25 and 39–44 were challenged, with claims 17 and 39 as the independent claims. My element mapping below is therefore at the level of the claim scope reflected in the title and the petition's characterization: a mobile device that retrieves video/multimedia content over the Internet from a service and wirelessly sends at least part of it to a television, TV controller, display device, or projection device.

Sources:

• Roku petition, PTACTS: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549998](/patent/1549998)/download-documents?artifactId=dUyJ5kv-ZShxXSnnTVJGx3lzOx0kU1r05imUlNBfErfpCtKAs1vmEzU
• IPR2022-01268 case record: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2022-01268 and https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-01268/Roku_Inc._v._Flexiworld_Technologies_Inc/
• Sibling IPR institution (9,836,257): https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2022/11/10/flexiworld-wireless-communications-patent-likely-invalid

I. The prior-art landscape for the '822 patent

The prior art identified for this patent falls into three groups:

A. Primary references — the Roku IPR combination (Ex. 1005–1008)

B. Supporting/alternative references from the same petition (Ex. 1009–1011, 1015–1021)

• ANSI/IEEE Std 802.11 (1999) (Ex. 1011) — the canonical "over air" wireless LAN standard.
• Shiroshita, "Large-scale Contents Distribution" (Ex. 1010) — distributing large content over a network to low-capability mobile terminals (i.e., the "Internet content service" element).
• Boyce, US 6,317,462 B1 (Ex. 1009) — video/MPEG content transmission over a network to a remote device.
• Background device literature (Ex. 1015–1021: PC Magazine; PalmPilot User Guide; Sony CLIE PEG-S300 Operating Instructions; Palm Pilot references; AppleInsider AirPort article) — contemporaneous evidence that handheld devices with wireless add-ons (e.g., Palm VII, CLIE with a wireless sled, AirPort base stations) were ordinary, well-known products at the priority date.

C. Corroborating family art

• In the instituted sibling IPR (IPR2022-00775, 9,836,257), Unified Patents' grounds — Olgaard in view of Moghadam, and Acharya in view of Griffiths — show that the same "mobile device → wireless output device" concept in this family was treated by the PTAB as presenting a reasonable likelihood of obviousness.

II. The primary obviousness combination (mirroring Ground 1 of the Roku petition)

Ground 1: Claims 17–25 and 39–44 obvious over Yukie in view of Ellis, Ikonen, and Lewis.

This is the combination an actual skilled challenger (Roku, supported by Dr. James Olivier, Ex. 1002/1003) asserted against the exact independent claims at issue. The petition's characterization is apt: "the purported invention… is quite simple—it is a mobile device that retrieves multimedia content over the Internet and sends it to a separate device for display."

Element-by-element mapping (high level)

Why a POSITA would have been motivated to combine

1. Same field, same problem. All four references address the recognized problem the '822 specification itself states: a mobile device's small screen cannot adequately render rich content, so the user wants the content output on a nearby, larger output device (the specification: "a user may want to output a complete web page or any document or file to a larger display screen nearby"). Yukie and Ikonen solve exactly that problem; Ellis and Lewis supply the standard portable-device wireless plumbing.

2. Known interchangeability of the wireless link (KSR "known interchangeable elements"). The '822 specification expressly treats the output device class and the wireless medium as a menu of interchangeable options — "output device may include … televisions, monitors and projectors," and "the wireless interface may be a short-range radio interface such as those implemented according to the Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11 standard." When a reference (Yukie) teaches the functional relationship (terminal → display) and another (Ikonen/Ellis/Lewis/802.11) teaches the standard wireless medium, substitution is the textbook obvious combination of known elements with predictable results.

3. Design need and market incentive. The mobile-device small-screen limitation was notorious by 2000 (the background device literature, WAP/web-clipping context in the specification, and the Palm/CLIE materials all confirm it). A POSITA seeking to enlarge the effective display of a handheld would naturally look to wireless display transmission — the same incentive that motivated Yukie and Ikonen independently.

4. Reasonable expectation of success. Every component was off-the-shelf: 802.11/Bluetooth radios, handhelds, streaming/content servers, and TVs with external receivers. Combining a known content-receiving terminal with a known wireless link to a known display device does not require new technology; the success probability would have been high.

5. No unexpected results / weak secondary considerations. Roku's petition characterized the claims as drafted by "plucking items from the grab-bag" over a 15-year prosecution, i.e., claiming a known system plus a catalog of well-known optional features (authentication, encryption, device objects, subscriptions). Nothing in the record suggests long-felt need, commercial success, or industry praise attributable to the claimed combination.

III. Alternative combinations that would also render the claims obvious

Alternative A — Internet content-delivery focused: Yukie/Ikonen + Shiroshita + Boyce + IEEE 802.11.
If a claim requires the "receiving video digital content over the Internet from a service" element in more detail, Shiroshita (large-scale content distribution to mobile terminals) and Boyce (video transmission over a network) supply that element expressly, while IEEE 802.11 (1999) supplies the "over air" transmission element. Combining a content-distribution system with a standard wireless display link is the predictable integration of known components.

Alternative B — Video-centric: Boyce (primary) + Ikonen + Lewis/Ellis.
For claims emphasizing video content, Boyce as primary (networked video content transmission) combined with Ikonen (mobile-device-to-display wireless media transfer) and Lewis/Ellis (portable wireless devices) maps onto the same claim elements with the same motivations: interoperability, standard protocols, and the small-screen design need.

Alternative C — Sibling-case art (corroborating).
The PTAB's institution in IPR2022-00775 on the closely related 9,836,257 patent over Olgaard + Moghadam and Acharya + Griffiths demonstrates that the examiner/PTAB-level assessment of this family's technology treats the "mobile device transmits content wirelessly to an output device" concept as obvious. While that decision addresses a different patent's claims, it is strong evidence of how the same art would apply to the '822 claims.

IV. Graham-factor synthesis

• Scope and content of prior art: All elements (mobile terminal, Internet content service, wireless LAN, external display device) were known and, per the contemporaneous device literature, commercially available by the priority date (Nov. 20, 2000).
• Differences from the prior art: The only asserted difference is the combination — a mobile device that receives Internet video and wirelessly relays it to a TV/display. That is a combination of known elements performing their known functions with predictable results.
• Level of ordinary skill: A POSITA would be a designer of wireless handheld devices or networked media systems with knowledge of 802.11/Bluetooth, Internet streaming, and display interfaces — precisely the knowledge embodied in the references.
• Secondary considerations: None of record that would rebut the prima facie case.

V. Caveats and confidence levels

• Confidence in the combination itself: high. The Roku petition is a contemporaneous, adversarial identification of the exact combination (Yukie + Ellis + Ikonen + Lewis) against the exact claims (17–25, 39–44) of this exact patent, and the petition's prima facie case was never rebutted on the merits (the case settled pre-institution).
• No PTAB merits decision exists — settlement means there is no final obviousness holding, only the petition's showing.
• Medium confidence on the internal details of Yukie/Ikonen/Ellis/Lewis. I have not retrieved the full text of those patents; my descriptions reflect their roles as characterized in the petition and exhibit list. Verify the specific disclosures against Ex. 1005–1008 before relying on any element-by-element mapping in litigation.
• Low-to-medium confidence on the verbatim independent claim language, which remains unrecovered. The element mapping above tracks the claim scope as reflected in the patent's title and the petition's framing.

Bottom line: Under § 103, claims 17–25 and 39–44 of US 9,389,822 are highly vulnerable to obviousness over Yukie in view of Ellis, Ikonen, and Lewis (with IEEE 802.11, Shiroshita, and Boyce as reinforcing art), because the claimed "mobile device receives Internet video and wirelessly displays it on a TV" is a predictable combination of known elements addressing a well-documented small-screen problem, with strong motivation to combine and a high expectation of success.