US 9591117

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 9591117:

Title: Method and system for communication
Assignee: Messageloud Inc (Current Assignee) (Original Assignee: Messageloud LLC)
Inventor: Garin Toren
Filing Date: September 25, 2015
Issue Date: March 7, 2017
Abstract: Provided is a computer implemented method and system for delivering text messages, emails, and messages from a messenger application to a user while the user is engaged in an activity, such as driving, exercising, or working. Typically, the emails and other messages are announced to the user and read aloud without any user input. In Drive Mode, while the user is driving, a clean interface is shown to the user, and the user can hear announcements and messages/emails aloud without looking at the screen of the phone, and use gestures to operate the phone. After a determination is made that a new text message and/or email has arrived, the user is informed aloud of the text message/email/messenger message and in most instances, and if the user takes no further action, the body and/or subject of the text message/email/messenger message is read aloud to the user. All messages can be placed in a single queue, and read to the user in order of receipt.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

The patent contains four independent claims: one method claim, one mobile phone claim, and two system claims.

Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim):
This claim describes a computer-implemented method performed by a device with a processor, memory, and touch screen. It covers:

• Automatic Arrival Determination: The device determines, without any user input, that a new text message, email, or messenger application message has arrived while the user is busy with another activity (e.g., driving, exercising, working).
• Automatic Sender Information: The device informs the user, without any user input, that a message has arrived and identifies the sender by reading the sender's identity aloud.
• Conditional Read-Aloud (Two Options):
  • Option A (Default Read): The device provides a short time for the user to take an action to stop the reading aloud of the message body (and email subject, if applicable). If no such action is received, the message body (and email subject) is automatically read aloud to the user.
  • Option B (Commanded Read): The device provides a short time for the user to take an action to command the reading aloud of the message body (and email subject, if applicable). If such an action is received, the message body (and email subject) is then read aloud to the user.

Independent Claim 13 (Mobile Phone Claim):
This claim describes a mobile phone apparatus including one or more processors and memory storing programs that, when executed, perform the steps similar to those outlined in the method claim. Specifically, it involves:

• Automatic Arrival Determination: Determining, without user input, that a text message, email, or messenger application message has arrived while the user is engaged in an activity.
• Content Analysis: Analyzing the content of the message, again without user input.
• Automatic Sender Information: Informing the user, without user input, that the message has arrived from a sender by reading the sender's identity aloud.
• Conditional Read-Aloud (Default Read): Allowing the user time to take an affirmative action to stop the reading aloud of the message body (and email subject, if applicable). If no such action is received, the message body (and email subject) is automatically read aloud to the user.

Independent Claim 14 (System Claim 1):
This claim describes a system for delivering messages and emails to a user engaged in an activity, comprising a processor, memory, and touch screen. The system is configured to perform steps similar to the method claim, including:

• Running an Application: An application runs on the device to deliver messages while the user is engaged in an activity.
• Automatic Arrival Determination: The application determines, without user input, that a message has arrived while it's running.
• Content Analysis: The application analyzes the message content without user input.
• Automatic Sender Information: The application informs the user, without user input, that the message has arrived from a sender by reading the sender's identity aloud.
• Conditional Read-Aloud (Default Read): The application allows the user time to take an affirmative action to stop the reading aloud of the message body. If no such action is received, the message body is automatically read aloud to the user.

Independent Claim 16 (System Claim 2):
This claim describes a system with a processor, memory, and touch screen for delivering messages while a user is engaged in an activity. It specifically highlights the modular components:

• Queue Notification Module: This module places incoming text messages, emails, or messenger application messages into a single queue for processing.
• Analyzer Module: This module analyzes the content of the messages without any user input.
• Text-to-Speech Module: This module is configured to:
  • Inform the user by voice, without user input, that a message has arrived from a sender by reading the sender's identity aloud.
  • If no affirmative action to stop reading is received from the user, instruct a speaker to read aloud the body of the text message or email to the user.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search of CAFC 2026 dockets for "US9591117" did not return any specific cases related to this patent. However, the Google Patents page for US9591117 indicates the patent family has litigation, including a PTAB case (IPR2025-01426 filed, procedurally terminated) and US cases filed in the Texas Western and Eastern District Courts, as well as first worldwide family litigation. These are not CAFC dockets.

As of April 26, 2026, the Google Patents page for US9591117 indicates that the patent family has been involved in litigation. Specifically:

• PTAB Case: IPR2025-01426 was filed and has a status of "Procedural Termination".
• US District Court Cases:
  • One case was filed in the Texas Western District Court with case number 6:25-cv-00185.
  • Another case was filed in the Texas Eastern District Court with case number 2:25-cv-00486.
• Worldwide Family Litigation: The patent family is also involved in its first worldwide litigation.

Details regarding the plaintiffs, defendants, and specific filing dates for the US District Court cases and the worldwide litigation are not explicitly provided on the Google Patents page. Information about the outcome or current status of the US District Court cases and worldwide litigation is also not detailed.

A search of CAFC 2026 dockets did not return any specific cases related to US9591117. Similarly, a general PACER search for "US9591117" would require a PACER account to access detailed case information, including parties, exact filing dates, and current status for any potential federal litigation.

Proceedings overview

There has been one AIA trial proceeding concerning US Patent 9591117. The proceeding, IPR2025-01426, was terminated, suggesting a settlement or joint request for adverse judgment rather than a final decision on the merits. This means the claims of the patent have not been substantively challenged and invalidated through the PTAB process, leaving the patent's claims untested by an IPR.

IPR2025-01426 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Garin Toren

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-29
• Status: Terminated (The proceeding concluded without a full merits decision, likely due to a settlement or other agreement between the parties.)
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided data.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from the provided data.
• Institution decision: Not publicly available from the provided data.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding was terminated.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated on 2026-04-14. The specific terms of the termination are confidential, but IPRs are frequently terminated due to settlements between the petitioner and patent owner.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The termination of this IPR means that the claims of US9591117 were not adjudicated by the PTAB. Therefore, this IPR does not offer a definitive ruling on the patentability of the claims for a defendant. The fact that the IPR was terminated by Apple Inc. could suggest a confidential settlement or licensing agreement, which might indicate that Apple found value or risk in the patent, leading them to resolve the dispute outside of a full PTAB decision.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US9591117 remain UNTESTED by a PTAB Final Written Decision. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01426, was terminated before a decision on the merits, likely due to a settlement between Apple Inc. (the petitioner) and the patent owner. This means there is no PTAB-based estoppel under § 315(e)(2) for this specific IPR, as no claims were found unpatentable in a final written decision. For a defendant currently being asserted against, all prior-art grounds remain available to challenge the patent's claims, provided those grounds meet the statutory requirements for an IPR or other relevant challenges. The termination of the IPR by Apple, a major technology company, might suggest a licensing agreement or other private resolution. This could be interpreted in different ways: either the patent owner successfully defended the claims, or Apple found it strategically advantageous to settle rather than risk a PTAB decision, or the claims were narrowed as part of the settlement.

Recommended next steps

Since no claims of US9591117 have been invalidated by the PTAB, there is no FWD to link to or disposition to quote. If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent, you should consider a fresh analysis of the patent's claims against the prior art to identify potential grounds for a new IPR petition. The absence of an active PTAB challenge means the patent has not yet faced a public invalidity challenge that proceeded to a final decision.

Inventors

The sole named inventor is Garin Toren. No employer is listed on the patent.

Original assignee

The original assignee, as listed on the Google Patents page, is Messageloud LLC. The patent abstract indicates the invention is a "Method and system for communication," specifically for delivering messages while a user is engaged in an activity like driving, exercising, or working. The company appears to have offered a product, "messageLOUD® application," described in the patent (e.g., FIG. 1 illustrating a user launching the messageLOUD application). According to Google Patents, the current assignee is Messageloud Inc., suggesting a change in corporate structure from an LLC to an Inc. entity. Publicly available information beyond the patent itself would be needed to definitively determine their current product shipping status, primary line of business, or detailed corporate status (operating, acquired, dissolved, in bankruptcy).

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Patent Assignment Search was consulted for US9591117.

• 2016-11-17 (executed) / recorded 2016-11-17 — Reel 038870/0413

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: TOREN, GARIN
  • Assignee: messageLOUD LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL L. LOFARO, ESQ., 1221 E. Lincoln Highway, #332, Levittown, PA, 19056
  • Context: Inventor assigned patent rights to the original assignee.

• 2019-02-28 (executed) / recorded 2019-02-28 — Reel 046524/0748

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: messageLOUD LLC
  • Assignee: MESSAGELOUD INC.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL L. LOFARO, ESQ., 1221 E. Lincoln Highway, #332, Levittown, PA, 19056. This correspondent also appeared on the prior assignment in this chain.
  • Context: Internal reorganization / corporate structure change from LLC to Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9591117
    2015 : Filed by Messageloud LLC
    2016 : Inventor assigned to Messageloud LLC
    2017 : Issued
    2019 : Assigned to Messageloud Inc
    2025 : PTAB case filed
    2026 : PTAB case terminated

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. The transition from "Messageloud LLC" to "MESSAGELOUD INC." (Reel 046524/0748) suggests a corporate restructuring rather than a transfer to a shell entity for licensing purposes. There is evidence of a product, the "messageLOUD® application," being offered.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither "Messageloud LLC" nor "MESSAGELOUD INC." appear on common public NPE lists such as those maintained by RPX Insurance or Unified Patents, nor do they match the specific known asserters provided.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. MICHAEL L. LOFARO, ESQ., with the firm and address 1221 E. Lincoln Highway, #332, Levittown, PA, 19056, appears as the correspondent on both recorded assignments: Reel 038870/0413 and Reel 046524/0748.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are only two assignments recorded, and they are separated by over two years.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The assignments occurred in 2016 and 2019. The first recorded litigation (PTAB case IPR2025-01426, District Court cases 6:25-cv-00185 and 2:25-cv-00486) appears to have been filed in 2025. This timing does not suggest a transfer within 6 months before the first litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication in the assignment records or publicly available information (such as SEC filings) that Messageloud LLC or Messageloud Inc. have undergone bankruptcy proceedings.

7. Privateering — unclear. There is no publicly available information in the assignment records or general business searches to suggest an operating company has transferred the patent to an NPE for assertion against competitors on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The consistent involvement of "Messageloud LLC" and "MESSAGELOUD INC." as assignees, coupled with the mention of the "messageLOUD® application" in the patent as a product, suggests an operating company. While a repeat correspondent (MICHAEL L. LOFARO, ESQ.) is noted across the assignments (Reel 038870/0413 and 046524/0748), this alone is not sufficient to definitively indicate an NPE without other stronger signals. The primary purpose of the entity appears to be developing and offering the described communication system. The active litigation, including the PTAB case filed by [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), suggests assertion, likely by the operating company itself.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US9591117: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 9591117, I will examine the "Prior art keywords" and "Prior art date" mentioned on the Google Patents page, as well as the "Definitions" section which explicitly references and discusses several prior art documents. While I do not have direct access to the USPTO internal citation lists, the Google Patents page typically reflects the examiner-cited prior art.

Based on the provided patent text, the following prior art references are explicitly discussed in the "BACKGROUND SECTION OF THE INVENTION" and "Definitions" sections. The patent itself identifies these as relevant prior art and discusses their perceived shortcomings, which helps in understanding how US9591117 attempts to distinguish itself.

Here's an analysis of the most relevant prior art as discussed within the patent document itself:

1. US 2013/0275899

• Full Citation: US 2013/0275899 A1 (though the patent text only lists the application number, A1 is the typical publication designation for a patent application).
• Publication/Filing Date: The patent text doesn't provide the filing date of US 2013/0275899, but it was published in 2013. The priority date of US9591117 is November 21, 2014, so this reference predates the priority date.
• Brief Description: This patent application proposes a "limited-distraction user interface" that displays fewer selectable objects than a non-limited interface, adaptable based on whether the device is in a limited distraction context.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The patent for US9591117 explicitly states that US 2013/0275899 "relies on substantial input from the user even in the limited-distraction context, making it difficult for a user to use a mobile phone in such context." This suggests that US9591117 aims to overcome the need for "substantial input from the user" by providing a system that delivers information and allows limited interaction without requiring the user to look at the screen. Therefore, US 2013/0275899 could potentially anticipate elements related to a "limited-distraction user interface" but likely not the "without any input by a user" aspects or the specific hands-free, gesture-based interaction highlighted in US9591117's claims (e.g., Independent Claims 1, 13, 14, and 16, which emphasize automatic determination, informing, and reading aloud without user input, or with limited, non-visual input).

2. U.S. Pat. No. 8,364,183

• Full Citation: US 8,364,183 B1 (the patent text only lists the patent number, B1 is the typical publication designation for an issued patent).
• Publication/Filing Date: The patent text does not provide the filing or publication date for US 8,364,183, but it is an issued patent prior to US9591117's priority date.
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a cell phone modified with software that responds to "Busykeys" by automatically sending a pre-typed text message to the sender of the latest text message or automatically answering an incoming call with a pre-recorded audio message.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US9591117 argues that US 8,364,183 "do[es] not allow a person to respond to a text or a call other than by sending a pre-typed text message and still require substantial input from the user since the user has to choose and press on a Busykey button." This criticism directly targets the user input requirement. Thus, while US 8,364,183 may anticipate features related to automatic responses or audio messages in a "busy" context, it would likely not anticipate the "without any input by a user" aspects of determining arrival or initially informing the user, nor the flexible response options beyond pre-typed messages or pre-recorded audio, as claimed in US959117 (e.g., the ability to have the body of the message read aloud or to call back the sender with simple gestures, without requiring visual interaction with "Busykeys").

3. U.S. Pat. No. 8,526,973

• Full Citation: US 8,526,973 B1.
• Publication/Filing Date: The patent text does not provide the filing or publication date for US 8,526,973, but it is an issued patent prior to US9591117's priority date.
• Brief Description: This patent is grouped with US 8,364,183 and US 8,359,014 and shares the same general description regarding "Busykeys" for automatic text messages or pre-recorded audio responses to calls.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US 8,364,183, US 8,526,973 would face the same arguments regarding the "substantial input from the user" and limited response options. It would likely not anticipate the core "without any input by a user" and flexible, hands-free interaction features emphasized in US959117's claims.

4. U.S. Pat. No. 8,359,014

• Full Citation: US 8,359,014 B1.
• Publication/Filing Date: The patent text does not provide the filing or publication date for US 8,359,014, but it is an issued patent prior to US9591117's priority date.
• Brief Description: This patent is also grouped with US 8,364,183 and US 8,526,973 and shares the same general description regarding "Busykeys" for automatic text messages or pre-recorded audio responses to calls.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): As with the other "Busykey" patents, US 8,359,014 would likely not anticipate the features of US959117 related to automatic, non-user-initiated announcements and message body read-aloud functionality, nor the broad range of hands-free interaction beyond pressing a "Busykey."

These prior art references are specifically highlighted by the patent itself to differentiate the claimed invention. The core distinction emphasized by US959117 is the reduction or elimination of user input, particularly visual input, for initial message notification and content delivery, and the provision of a more flexible, hands-free interaction paradigm. The claims of US959117 consistently emphasize "determining without any input by a user" and "informing the user without any input by the user," as well as interactions based on gestures or limited taps without needing to look at the screen.

To assess the obviousness of US Patent 9591117 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will consider combinations of the prior art references explicitly discussed within the patent itself and publicly available general knowledge at the time of the patent's priority date (November 21, 2014).

The patent US9591117 claims a computer-implemented method and system for delivering text messages, emails, and messenger application messages to a user engaged in an activity (e.g., driving, exercising, working), emphasizing automatic notifications, reading content aloud, and hands-free interaction (e.g., gestures without looking at the screen). The patent itself identifies shortcomings in existing solutions:

• US 2013/0275899, which proposes a "limited-distraction user interface," is criticized for still relying on "substantial input from the user."
• U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,364,183, 8,526,973, and 8,359,014 (referred to as "Busykey patents") describe a system where a user presses a "Busykey" to automatically send a pre-typed message or play pre-recorded audio. These are criticized because they "still require substantial input from the user since the user has to choose and press on a Busykey button" and require the user to "take his or her eyes off the road to find the Busykey button."

The patent explicitly states a need in the art "to allow a person to receive emails and other messages while the person is engaged in an activity that limits the person's ability to read emails and other messages." This statement provides a clear motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) to combine and modify existing technologies to address these identified deficiencies.

Combination of Prior Art for Obviousness Analysis

A PHOSITA in 2014 would have possessed knowledge of:

• Mobile operating systems' capabilities for automatic message detection and notification (e.g., alerts, vibrations, sounds for incoming emails, text messages, and messenger app notifications).
• Text-to-Speech (TTS) technology for converting text into spoken words, widely available and used for accessibility features, navigation systems, and voice assistants.
• Basic touchscreen gestures (taps, swipes) for interaction, common on smartphones.
• Speech recognition technology for voice commands.
• The concept of managing asynchronous messages in a queue.

We will consider the following combination of prior art references:

1. US 2013/0275899: This reference establishes the concept of a "limited-distraction user interface" designed for contexts where user attention is restricted.
2. U.S. Pat. No. 8,364,183 (representative of US 8,526,973 and US 8,359,014): These patents introduce the idea of a mobile device acting automatically in response to incoming communications when the user is "busy," albeit requiring a physical "Busykey" press.

Motivation to Combine and Modification

The very problems articulated in US959117's background section provide a strong motivation for a PHOSITA to combine and adapt the described prior art. The core problem is the "substantial input" and the need to "take his or her eyes off the road" still required by existing "limited-distraction" systems.

A PHOSITA would be motivated to:

• Improve upon the "limited-distraction user interface" of US 2013/0275899 by further reducing or eliminating the need for visual or complex manual input.
• Enhance the "automatic response" functionality of the Busykey patents by making the initial notification and content delivery truly hands-free and less dependent on specific button presses, thereby addressing the safety concern of looking away from the road.

This motivation would lead a PHOSITA to combine the limited-distraction context (US 2013/0275899) with the concept of automated message handling (Busykey patents), and then implement the following modifications using known technologies:

Obviousness of Independent Claims

Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim):

• a) Determining without any input by a user that a message has arrived while engaged in an activity: Modern mobile operating systems inherently detect incoming messages (text, email, messenger) automatically and generate notifications. The concept of a "user engaged in an activity" (e.g., driving) is well-covered by US 2013/0275899 (limited-distraction context) and the Busykey patents (user is "busy"). It would be obvious to integrate the automatic message detection of a standard mobile OS with the context determination (e.g., driving mode) provided by US 2013/0275899.
• b) Informing the user without any input by the user that the message has arrived from a sender: Given the context of limited distraction (US 2013/0275899) and the need to avoid visual interaction (as criticized in the Busykey patents), it would be an obvious application of widely available Text-to-Speech (TTS) technology to audibly announce the sender's identity upon automatic message arrival. This directly addresses the problem of having to look at a screen.
• c) Proceeding with a conditional read-aloud step:
  • (i) Allowing time to stop reading aloud; if no input, reading aloud the body automatically: In a hands-free environment, after an automatic announcement, providing a default action (reading the message body aloud using TTS) if the user takes no explicit "stop" action is a logical design choice to ensure information delivery without requiring further interaction from a busy user. This improves upon the Busykey patents' automatic but limited responses (pre-typed text, pre-recorded audio) by providing the full message content via a non-visual channel. A PHOSITA would aim to reduce explicit user input in a limited-distraction environment.
  • (ii) Allowing time to command reading aloud; if input, reading aloud the body: This is a common interactive paradigm, akin to "Press X to hear your message." A PHOSITA would readily implement this using simple, non-visual input like gestures (tapping/swiping) or voice commands, which were known methods for hands-free interaction by 2014.

Independent Claim 13 (Mobile Phone Claim) and Claim 14 (System Claim 1):
These claims contain similar method steps, but in the context of a mobile phone or system comprising a processor, memory, and touch screen.

• Content Analysis ("analyzing without any input by the user a content"): Extracting sender, subject (for email), and body from a message is a fundamental function of any messaging application and is a prerequisite for a TTS system to read the message aloud. This analysis is performed automatically by the application without user initiation.
• Running an application configured to deliver messages: This is inherent to any mobile device providing messaging services.
  The remaining elements for arrival determination, informing, and conditional read-aloud are rendered obvious by the same reasoning as for Claim 1.

Independent Claim 16 (System Claim 2):
This claim describes specific modules:

• Queue Notification Module for placing messages in a single queue: For a system designed to deliver various message types (email, text, messenger) in a hands-free, sequential manner, it would be an obvious architectural decision for a PHOSITA to consolidate these messages into a single chronological queue for consistent processing and playback. This is a logical extension of standard notification queuing mechanisms in operating systems.
• Analyzer Module for analyzing content without user input: As discussed for Claim 13, automatic parsing of message content is a fundamental and obvious precursor to extracting information for TTS.
• Text-to-Speech Module configured for informing and conditional read-aloud: This module directly implements the TTS functionalities for announcing the sender and reading the message body. As established, applying TTS in a limited-distraction, hands-free context to overcome the limitations of prior art (like Busykeys requiring visual interaction) is obvious.

Conclusion

The invention claimed in US9591117, particularly the independent claims, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention. The motivation to combine the references stems directly from the patent's own identification of deficiencies in existing solutions (US 2013/0275899 and the Busykey patents) regarding "substantial user input" and the need for users to visually interact with devices in distracting environments. A PHOSITA, aiming to create a truly hands-free messaging experience, would naturally combine the concepts of limited-distraction interfaces with automatic message handling, and then integrate well-known technologies such as TTS, automatic message detection and parsing, and simple touchscreen gestures (tapping/swiping) to enable non-visual notification and interaction. The specific "modes" (Drive, Active, Work) and a unified message queue are logical design choices for such an integrated system.