US 9755931

Let me search for litigation and CAFC activity specific to this patent.

Let me verify which Lemko patent was at issue in the Federal Circuit/PTAB decision and whether it involves 9755931.

I have enough authoritative information to answer, though with one caveat noted below regarding the CAFC 2026 docket.

US Patent 9,755,931 — Summary

Title: Fault Tolerant Distributed Mobile Architecture

Assignee / Current Assignee:

• Original assignee: Lemko Corporation (Itasca, IL)
• Note: On 2025-03-25, Google Patents records an assignment of a patent security agreement to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as security holder (Lemko Corporation as assignor). This is a security interest, not necessarily a change of title ownership.

Inventor: ShaoWei Pan (Kildeer, IL)

Application / Filing: Application No. 14/184,120, filed February 19, 2014 (a continuation of U.S. Application No. 12/163,601, filed June 27, 2008, which issued as US 8,706,105 B2). Priority date: June 27, 2008.

Issue Date: September 5, 2017

Legal Status: Active (Google Patents shows adjusted expiration 2029-08-15; the patent family also has a later continuation, US 10,547,530 B2, filed 2017-08-09).

Abstract (as published):
"A method includes detecting a failure condition relating to a first distributed mobile architecture (dMA) gateway (dMAG) at a dMAG management system. The dMAG management system is in communication with at least the first dMAG, a second dMAG, and dMA nodes. The method also includes determining that the first dMAG is offline based on the failure condition, selecting the second dMAG, sending a first notification from the dMAG management system to the second dMAG, and sending a second notification from the dMAG management system to an external system. The external system is configured to connect calls to a mobile station via the first dMAG. The first notification instructs the second dMAG to take over operations from the first dMAG. The second notification indicates that the external system is to connect subsequent calls to the mobile station via the second dMAG."

The granted patent contains 16 claims. The independent claims are claims 1, 7, and 12 (the rest are dependent).

Plain-language overview of each independent claim

Claim 1 (Method): A dMAG management system, which is in communication with a first dMAG, a second dMAG, and multiple dMA nodes, detects a failure condition associated with the first dMAG. In response, the management system sends three notifications: (i) to the second dMAG, instructing it to take over the first dMAG's operations; (ii) to a dMA node (the node that had been connecting calls from a mobile station to an external system through the first dMAG), telling it the second dMAG has taken over and to route such calls through the second dMAG; and (iii) to the external system itself, instructing it to direct subsequent calls to the mobile station through the second dMAG.

Claim 7 (System): A dMAG management system having three functional modules: an operation determination module that receives messages and detects a failure condition associated with a first dMAG; a dMAG selection module that selects a second dMAG upon detection of the failure condition; and a notification module that (a) instructs the second dMAG to take over the first dMAG's operation, (b) notifies a dMA node (which had connected mobile-station calls to an external system via the first dMAG) that the second dMAG has taken over and to route calls via the second dMAG, and (c) instructs the external system to connect calls to the mobile station via the second dMAG. (This is essentially the apparatus counterpart to claim 1.)

Claim 12 (Machine-readable storage device): A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the operations of claim 1 — detecting the failure condition at the dMAG management system and sending the same three notifications (to the second dMAG, to the dMA node, and to the external system).

Notable dependent-claim limitations (claims 2–6, 8–11, 13–16): The "failure condition" may be detected from (a) an offline/going-offline message from the first dMAG itself (claims 2, 9, 13); (b) a message from a dMA node local to the first dMAG indicating failure (claims 3, 10, 14); (c) a message from a dMAG interface of the external system indicating failure (claims 5, 11, 16); or (d) failure to receive a periodic heartbeat message from the first dMAG (claim 6). Certain dependents add a further notification to the affected dMA node that the second dMAG is taking over (claims 4, 15). Claim 8 adds that the modules are stored in memory and executable by a processor.

CAFC / litigation status and uncertainty

• District court: This patent (the "'931 Patent") is asserted in Lemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation et al., No. 3:22-cv-00363 (N.D. Tex., filed Feb. 14, 2022), along with several other Lemko patents. In August 2024, the district court granted Microsoft's motion to dismiss Lemko's direct and indirect infringement claims without prejudice (with one final opportunity to amend). I found no post-2024 merits decision in that docket confirming current claim status.
• CAFC 2026 dockets: I was unable to confirm any specific CAFC 2026 appeal docket tied to patent 9,755,931. A Law360 article dated April 10, 2026 ("Microsoft Keeps PTAB Win Against Communications Patent") reports that the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB decision in which Microsoft showed claims of a Lemko "distributed mobile architecture patent" were invalid, but the snippets I retrieved do not identify the patent number, so I cannot confirm with confidence that decision concerns 9,755,931 rather than a related Lemko family member. Treat that as unverified. I found no evidence of a 2026 CAFC appeal naming 9,755,931 by number.
• Cited-by note: The patent is cited in later Lemko-family and third-party patents (e.g., US 11,522,128 B2, US 11,997,762 B2), which is consistent with active enforcement interest but not case status.

Key uncertainty: The April 2026 Federal Circuit/PTAB outcome involving a Lemko communications patent could not be definitively tied to this patent number from available search results. If you need certainty on that point, I'd recommend checking the CAFC docket directly or the PTAB's IPR trial listing under Lemko/Microsoft.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,755,931

Based on searches of district-court dockets, PTAB records, Unified Patents, Justia, Docket Alarm, and Lemko's own announcements, the only litigation I can confirm as actually involving U.S. Patent No. 9,755,931 is the following district-court action.

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

• Plaintiff: Lemko Corporation
• Defendants: Microsoft Corporation; Affirmed Networks, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
• Case No.: 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT
• Filing date: Complaint filed February 14, 2022 (case docketed February 13/14, 2022, per court/Unified Patents records)
• Patents in suit: The '931 patent is one of eight asserted patents in this case. The others are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,548,763; 7,653,414; 7,855,988; 8,107,409; 8,688,111; 9,191,980; and 9,332,478. The district court's own filings confirm the '931 patent is in suit (see, e.g., Doc. 77 describing "the '931 Patent generally disclos[ing] detecting a failure condition relating to a first DMAG at a DMAG management system . . .").
• Status / outcome:
  • The case was assigned to Judge Sam A. Lindsay (Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford / later designation "-BT").
  • After an initial motion to dismiss (May 2022), the court granted dismissal in part with leave to amend (Sept. 2023), and Lemko filed a Second Amended Complaint.
  • On April 10, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (Doc. 90). On June 4, 2025, Judge Lindsay adopted the Report (Doc. 94), granting the motion to dismiss as to Lemko's contributory infringement claims (dismissed with prejudice) and denying it in all other respects. Lemko announced on April 15, 2025, that the court had denied Microsoft's motion to dismiss Lemko's direct and indirect infringement claims.
  • Unified Patents' litigation caselist currently labels the case "Closed," although the Justia docket reflects activity into 2025. I could not confirm from the available sources the exact date or basis of any final closure (e.g., settlement, judgment, or stay), and I cannot verify whether an appeal followed.

Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/3:2022cv00363/[359096](/patent/359096) ; https://cases.justia.com/static/pdf-js/web/?file=/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/3:2022cv00363/359096/94/0.pdf ; https://www.lemkocorp.com/update-lemko-corporation-patent-litigation-against-microsoft-and-affirmed-networks/ ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (filtered to the case) ; https://ia903405.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.txnd.359096/gov.uscourts.txnd.359096.77.0.pdf

Related proceedings that DO NOT involve 9,755,931 (for accuracy, noted to avoid confusion)

• IPR2023-00531, Microsoft Corp. & Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp. (PTAB) — challenges U.S. Patent No. 7,855,988 (not 9,755,931). Final Written Decision Sept. 10, 2024; appealed to the Federal Circuit; the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's invalidity finding around April 10, 2026 (Law360). This is a sibling patent in the same Lemko dMA family, but it is not the '931 patent.
• IPR2023-00529, Microsoft Corp. & Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp. (PTAB) — challenges U.S. Patent No. 7,653,414 (also not 9,755,931).
• Lemko Corp. v. AT&T (E.D. Tex., No. 2:25-cv-00305, filed Mar. 17, 2025) — per reporting, the seven patents asserted against AT&T (7,840,230; 7,979,066; 8,224,322; 8,310,990; 8,340,667; 8,359,029; 9,198,020) do not overlap with the Microsoft suit and do not include 9,755,931.

Caveats

• I did not find any PTAB inter partes review, covered-business-method review, or post-grant review specifically directed at 9,755,931 in the search results available to me. The IPRs identified in the Microsoft campaign targeted sibling Lemko patents (7,653,414 and 7,855,988), not 9,755,931.
• I found no ITC investigation or other district-court case specifically naming 9,755,931 beyond the N.D. Tex. case above.
• If a new "second" Lemko v. Microsoft action has been filed (Lemko's news page contains a June 2026-dated item), it postdates today's date (April 26, 2026) and I could not verify its contents or whether 9,755,931 is asserted in it.

I'll research this patent's PTAB history and related proceedings. Let me run several searches to verify whether any AIA trial proceedings exist and to fill in context on the family litigation.

The searches surfaced related Microsoft/Lemko IPRs but on different Lemko patents ('988 and '414). I need to check specifically whether any IPR was filed against the '931 patent (US9755931) itself, since the district court case asserted it among eight patents.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) on file against US 9755931. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no proceedings for this patent, and web research surfaced no PTAB petition directed to the '931 patent itself — the Microsoft/Lemko IPRs found on the PTAB docket all target sibling Lemko patents, not this one. The breakdown is therefore trivially: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied, all 16 claims untested. The defensive posture this creates is a double-edged sword: a defendant facing assertion of the '931 cannot point to any PTAB cancellation, but also faces no § 315(e)(2) estoppel whatsoever on this patent, so every prior-art ground remains available for a district-court invalidity defense or a freshly filed IPR within the petitioner's own one-year § 315(b) window.

No per-proceeding sections follow because no proceeding exists. What follows is the honest "no activity" analysis plus the closely related context a defendant should know.

Strategic summary

Claim status: CANCELED / SUSTAINED / UNTESTED

Every one of the 16 claims of US 9755931 (independent claims 1 and 7; the rest dependent) is UNTESTED in any AIA trial. No petition has been filed, no institution decision issued, and no Final Written Decision exists. The patent remains fully enforceable on its face, and its adjusted expiration is 2029-08-15 (per the Google Patents bibliographic data in the record).

Why this is notable — the family context

The absence of an IPR on the '931 is conspicuous because the patent has been asserted in litigation since 2022. In Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. and Affirmed Networks, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (N.D. Tex., filed 2022-02-14), Lemko asserted eight patents, including 9,755,931 (described in the Amended Complaint as covering "detecting a failure condition relating to a first DMAG at a DMAG management system … selecting the second DMAG, sending a first notification … and sending a second notification … to an external system"). Microsoft/Affirmed responded with a coordinated IPR campaign in February 2023 — filed at the very edge of the § 315(b) one-year bar (service was February 2022) — but the proceedings I was able to confirm are all against other Lemko patents:

• IPR2023-00531 (Microsoft Corp. & Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp.) — U.S. Patent 7,855,988 ('988) — instituted; FWD entered 2024-09-10 finding challenged claims unpatentable (Raevsky, joined by Ippolito and Range); Lemko appealed to the Federal Circuit (Notice of Appeal 2024-09-16); press reports indicate the Federal Circuit affirmed around 2026-04-10.
• IPR2023-00529 (Microsoft Corp. & Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corp.) — U.S. Patent 7,653,414 ('414) — instituted 2023-09-26 (Powell, Lorin, Ippolito).
• IPR2023-00570 (Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Lemko Corp.) — U.S. Patent 9,191,980 ('980) — institution denied 2023-09-26.
• IPR2025-01142 (Microsoft Corp. et al. v. Lemko Corp.) — U.S. Patent 8,310,990 — discretionary denial 2025-11-20.

I found no docket entry or petition naming 9,755,931 as the challenged patent. That gap is significant: of the eight patents Lemko asserted against Microsoft/Affirmed, Microsoft appears to have challenged several but not the '931 — either as a deliberate merits/claim-scope choice, or because the crowded February 2023 filing window (all petitions were due by ~February 2023 under § 315(b)) closed before it could complete petitions on every patent.

Estoppel landscape — for the '931, it's a blank slate

Because no IPR/PGR/CBM has been instituted on 9,755,931, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone for this patent. A defendant sued today on the '931 can raise any § 102/§ 103/§ 112 ground, including art that overlaps with what Microsoft used against the sibling '988 and '414 patents. The one practical wrinkle: if your company is Microsoft, Affirmed Networks, or a privy that was served with the N.D. Tex. complaint before ~February 2022, the § 315(b) bar has run for you — a new IPR by that defendant on the '931 would be time-barred. Any new defendant (e.g., one first served later) has its own one-year window from service, and the PTAB's Fintiv discretion will weigh the parallel N.D. Tex. litigation (which has been mired in pleadings since 2022, cutting somewhat in favor of institution).

Pattern signals

• Same petitioner, serial filings on the family: Microsoft/Affirmed has now filed at least four IPRs across the Lemko distributed-mobile-architecture family — a coordinated campaign. The fact that the '931 was skipped suggests Microsoft assessed it as a weaker IPR target (or ran out of runway), not that the family campaign is over.
• Patent owner litigates hard and appeals: Lemko appealed the adverse FWD in IPR2023-00531 to the Federal Circuit and lost; it has also pressed multiple amended complaints in N.D. Tex. Expect aggressive patent-owner behavior in any future '931 IPR (motions to amend, sur-replies, appeals).
• No defensive aggregator in this patent's chain: Unified Patents appears only as a litigation-data aggregator for the N.D. Tex. case; there is no Unified Patents IPR on the '931. Note also that Lemko granted Motorola Solutions a covenant-not-to-sue on the '988 patent (per press reports) — a sign Lemko selectively licenses, but nothing that touches the '931.
• New litigation wave: Lemko sued AT&T in E.D. Tex. (2:25-cv-00305, ~2025-05) — but on a different seven-patent set (7,840,230; 7,979,066; 8,224,322; 8,310,990; 8,340,667; 8,359,029; 9,198,020), not the '931. As of the latest reports, the '931's only known assertion is the Microsoft/Affirmed case.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the "zero" finding against the live docket. The canonical USPTO ODP data in this prompt shows no AIA trial proceedings, and my searches found none directed to 9,755,931. Before relying on this, run the patent number through USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and the Unified Patents portal page for the patent (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-9755931-B2) to confirm no petition was filed and docketed under a number web search didn't surface. Do not assume any of the Microsoft IPRs above cover the '931 — they do not.

2. If you are a defendant in Lemko v. Microsoft, 3:22-cv-00363 (or a privy): you are almost certainly § 315(b) time-barred from filing an IPR on the '931 (service was February 2022; the bar expired February 2023). Your invalidity fight belongs in the district court. The case is still in the pleadings phase: contributory infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice (Order, 2025-06-04, adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report; motion to dismiss otherwise denied) — see Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 3:22-CV-363-L-BT, Doc. 94 (N.D. Tex. 2025). Build your § 101/§ 102/§ 103 case on the merits; there is no PTAB shortcut left for this defendant.

3. If you are a newly served defendant: you have a one-year § 315(b) window from service. The '931 is untested — a clean IPR petition on the strongest § 103 ground (the distributed-gateway failover art is crowded, and Microsoft's successful Flore-based § 102 theory against the sibling '988 shows the art cuts close to Lemko's DMA-gateway claims) is viable. Act fast: the statutory clock and the Fintiv factors both favor an early filing while the parallel litigation is still in pretrial. Beware that Lemko will litigate hard (it appealed the '988 loss to the Federal Circuit and lost), so build the record with expert testimony on day one.

4. The absence of PTAB activity is itself a data point for settlement leverage, not weakness. The '931 has survived four years of assertion and a coordinated Microsoft IPR campaign against its family without ever being challenged — that likely reflects Microsoft's petition-resource allocation, not a merits judgment that the claims are invincible. A defendant's best play is a rigorous invalidity analysis now, and if the art supports it, an IPR filing inside the window rather than waiting for the N.D. Tex. case to reach claim construction.

Sources: USPTO ODP structured data (no AIA proceedings on file, per the prompt); Unified Patents portal for US-9755931-B2 and case 3:22-cv-00363; Docket Alarm PTAB dockets for IPR2023-00529, IPR2023-00531, IPR2023-00570, and IPR2025-01142 (all on sibling Lemko patents, not the '931); IPR2023-00531 Institution/FWD records and Lemko CAFC appeal papers; Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 3:22-CV-363-L-BT (N.D. Tex.) Doc. 94 (2025-06-04); Law360/Mondaq coverage of the Lemko-Microsoft and Lemko-AT&T litigations. No proceeding numbers have been invented; every proceeding cited above is a different patent and is flagged as such.

I'll research the assignment history for US 9755931 by searching multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment records, litigation, and the parties involved.

Let me look for the specific assignment records with reel/frame numbers and check the Piccadilly security agreement nature.

I have reached the research step limit, so I'll now compile the analysis from the sources I was able to retrieve (the full patent record embedded in the prompt, Google Patents legal-event data, Unified Patents litigation tracker, Justia/Docket Alarm dockets, and Lemko's own public statements). I was not able to pull raw reel/frame numbers or recorded correspondent names from the USPTO Assignment Center in this session (that database requires interactive lookup), so I flag those fields as not retrieved rather than inventing them.

Inventors

• ShaoWei Pan — sole named inventor. Employer at time of filing: Lemko Corporation (the original assignee). Pan is the named inventor across the entire Lemko distributed-mobile-architecture family (e.g., parent US 8,706,105; US 7,855,988, etc.) and the recorded 2014 assignment of inventor interest names Pan, Shaowei as assignor to Lemko Corporation.
• Pattern note: Single-inventor filings, all assigned to the employer (Lemko) — a conventional employment-invention pattern. No departure/fire-sale signal: there is no evidence Pan left Lemko or that a portfolio sale followed the filing.

Original assignee

• Lemko Corporation (Schaumburg, Illinois) — named assignee on the issued patent.
• Products / line of business: Lemko describes itself as an operating company — a pioneer in NFV / mobile edge computing, selling private 4G/5G networks, wireless rural broadband, and public-safety/IoT deployments, with networks deployed in Alaska, Northern Canada, and Africa (lemkocorp.com, Apr. 2025). In the N.D. Tex. litigation it pleaded that it "began offering innovative network products and services" in 2004 and holds 50+ patents.
• Current status: Operating. Lemko is currently asserting this patent (and 7 related ones) against Microsoft/Affirmed Networks in Case 3:22-cv-00363-L-BT (N.D. Tex.), and defending against Microsoft IPRs (IPR2023-00531 et al.). No bankruptcy or dissolution found.

Assignment timeline

Important caveat: I could not retrieve reel/frame numbers or recorded correspondent names from the USPTO Assignment Center during this session. The two conveyance events below are documented in the Google Patents legal-event record for US 9755931 (and mirrored on the USPTO assignment feed); reel/frame and correspondent fields are not retrieved, not fabricated. Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "9755931").

• 2014-02-19 (recorded; execution date not separately published) — Google Patents legal event "Assigned to LEMKO CORPORATION … ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: PAN, SHAOWEI"
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest (inventor → company)
  • Assignor: ShaoWei Pan
  • Assignee: Lemko Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment recorded at the time the continuation application (US 14/184,120) was filed; not a monetization event.
• 2025-03-25 (recorded) — Google Patents legal event "Assigned to PICCADILLY PATENT FUNDING LLC, AS SECURITY HOLDER … PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT. Assignors: LEMKO CORPORATION"
  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement (a security interest / collateral grant, not a transfer of title)
  • Assignor: Lemko Corporation
  • Assignee: Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as Security Holder
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Patent-backed financing — Lemko borrowed against the portfolio; Piccadilly is the lender/security holder. This does not convey ownership; Lemko remains the record owner and the active plaintiff.

Note on family members: This patent is a continuation of US 12/163,601 (→ US 8,706,105) and has a continuation child US 15/673,156 (→ US 10,547,530). Those are family relationships, not additional assignment events for this patent.

No other recorded assignments were surfaced for this patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9755931
    2008 : Filed by Lemko Corp
    2014 : Continuation filed
         : Inventor assignment recorded
    2017 : Patent issued
    2022 : Suit against Microsoft
    2025 : Security agreement to Piccadilly

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only post-issuance record (2025-03-25) is a Patent Security Agreement in favor of Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, as Security Holder — a lending/security-interest filing, not a conveyance to a licensing-only LLC. Lemko remains the owner and is the party suing. No evidence of transfer to an "IP / Licensing / Holdings" shell.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. The plaintiff is Lemko Corporation itself — an operating company with deployed networks and a 20-year product history — not Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, or any entity on the Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff lists. Unified Patents' tracker records the case as Lemko Corp v. Microsoft Corp et al. (3:22-cv-00363), plaintiff Lemko. Piccadilly Patent Funding is a patent lender, not an asserting NPE in this record.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not retrieved. Reel/frame numbers and recorded correspondents were not retrievable in this session. The firm of record on the patent itself is Toler Law Group, PC (prosecution counsel), which is not an assignment-correspondent finding. No recurrence data is available, so no signal is asserted.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only two recorded events, 11 years apart (2014 inventor assignment; 2025 security agreement). No chained LLC-to-LLC conveyor belt.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. Suit was filed 2022-02-14; the only post-issuance record (the Piccadilly security agreement) was recorded 2025-03-25 — three years after the suit, not within 6 months before it. There was no transfer arranged to enable standing or venue.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Lemko is operating and litigating; no Chapter 7/11 sale found.
7. Privateering — Not present. Lemko asserts directly through Kramer Levin (Paul Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Aaron Frankel) against Microsoft/Affirmed Networks — a competitor in the NFV/private-network space Microsoft entered via its March 2022 Affirmed acquisition. No operating-company-to-front evidence.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Lemko Corporation — the original and current record owner, an operating company that says it ships NFV/MEC-based 4G/5G network products — is directly suing competitors Microsoft and Affirmed Networks (N.D. Tex. 3:22-cv-00363, filed 2022-02-14) over this patent. The sole post-issuance assignment event is a 2025-03-25 Patent Security Agreement to lender Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, which is a financing/security-interest filing, not a transfer of title or a transfer to an NPE, so no shell-transfer, cascading, or pre-litigation-transfer signals exist. Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "9755931"); litigation record: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3%3A22-cv-00363.

Important completeness caveat (read first)

I was asked to search the USPTO database for patent 9755931 and to analyze each patent citation on the face of that patent. I confirmed the USPTO record for US 9,755,931 B2, but I was not able to retrieve the complete "References Cited" page from USPTO within the search budget. The authoritative front-page reference list is only partially visible in the Google-hosted image PDF of the patent (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US9755931.pdf), which shows the beginning of the "References Cited — U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS" list plus two CN documents. The remainder of the list (including any further foreign documents and any non-patent literature) was cut off in the retrievable snippet. I therefore analyze below the references I could verify on the face of the patent, and I flag every item where the title/technical content could not be independently confirmed from the available excerpts. Where a title is given without a flag, I have reasonable corroboration.

1. USPTO record confirmation for 9755931 (literal)

From the patent image PDF (US009755931B2.pdf), the front page confirms:

• Patent No.: US 9,755,931 B2 (i.e., 9755931)
• Title: Fault Tolerant Distributed Mobile Architecture
• Inventor: Shaowei Pan (front-page OCR shows "Kidcer, IL" — a known OCR corruption of "Kildeer, IL"; the application record lists Kildeer)
• Assignee: Lemko Corporation, Itasca, IL
• Date of Patent: Sep. 5, 2017 (the asterisk denotes the patent term disclaimer/adjustment context; Google Patents shows adjusted expiration 2029-08-15)
• Continuity: Continuation of Application No. 12/163,601, filed Jun. 27, 2008, now U.S. Patent 8,706,105 B2
• Primary Examiner: Joshua Schwartz
• Attorney/Firm: Toler Law Group, PC
• Independent claims: 1 (method), 7 (system), 12 (machine-readable storage device)

This matches the previously generated summary. No conflicting USPTO record was found for this number; I did not substitute or auto-correct any other patent number (e.g., 8,706,105, 10,547,530, or the WO counterpart WO2009158155A2 are treated as distinct identifiers).

2. Verified front-page citations of US 9,755,931 B2 (partial list)

The following U.S. documents appear at the top of the patent's "References Cited" section (as rendered in the image PDF snippet). Dates are as printed on the face of the patent.

Additionally, a Google Patents cross-reference indicates that US 2002/0061746 A1 ("Method of global roaming services using gateway location register in third generation mobile telecommunication networks") appears in the 9755931 citation chain, but I could not verify that it is printed on the face of the patent itself, so I treat it as corroborated-but-unconfirmed.

I cannot list the remaining references (the face list continues past US 6,614,74x, and the snippet ends there). Treat this as a partial enumeration, not the complete set.

3. Claim scope against which § 102 is assessed

For a proper § 102 analysis, the relevant limitations of the independent claims are:

• Claim 1: (a) a dMAG management system in communication with at least a first dMAG, a second dMAG, and a plurality of dMA nodes; (b) detecting a failure condition associated with the first dMAG; and, in response, sending three notifications: (i) first notification to the second dMAG instructing it to take over the first dMAG's operations; (ii) second notification to a dMA node (the node that connects a mobile-station call to an external system via the first dMAG) telling it the second dMAG has taken over and to route calls via the second dMAG; and (iii) third notification to the external system instructing it to connect subsequent calls to the mobile station via the second dMAG.
• Claim 7: system counterpart with operation-determination, dMAG-selection, and notification modules performing the same detection + three-notification flow.
• Claim 12: machine-readable-storage-device counterpart of claim 1.

Dependent claims narrow the "failure condition" to: offline/going-offline message from the first dMAG (claims 2, 9, 13); message from a dMA node local to the first dMAG (claims 3, 10, 14); message from the external system's dMAG interface (claims 5, 11, 16); or missed periodic heartbeat (claim 6).

Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) requires a single reference disclosing every limitation, arranged as in the claim, either expressly or inherently. Under pre-AIA § 102 (the operative version given the 2008 priority date and pre-2013 effective filing date), a reference must also qualify as prior art (e.g., § 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(g)).

4. Per-reference § 102 assessment

A recurring threshold problem for every cited reference: the claims are built around a "dMAG management system" that is distinct from and coordinates a first dMAG, a second dMAG, and dMA nodes, and the claimed three-way notification (to the backup gateway, to the affected edge node, and to the external/legacy system). Older single-gateway-failover and call-routing patents generally disclose some of these elements but not the full management-system-plus-triple-notification combination. Because I could not verify the full text of most references, the claim-mapping below is stated conditionally.

US 5,734,979 A — Lu et al. — "Cellular base station with intelligent call routing" (Mar. 1998)

• Relevance: Discloses a cellular base station that makes intelligent routing decisions, potentially including redirecting calls when a network element is unavailable.
• § 102 exposure: Plausibly anticipatory of nothing on the face of claim 1/7/12 as a whole, because it lacks the dMAG management system in communication with a second dMAG and dMA nodes and the third notification to an external system to reroute subsequent calls. It is more naturally § 103 (obviousness) material, and at most touches the "dMA node side" concept found in claim 1's second notification.

US 6,549,937 B1 — Auerbach et al. — "System and method for multi-protocol communication in a computer network" (Apr. 2003)

• Relevance: Multi-protocol gateway/routing between networks; the closest of the verified references to a "gateway serving plural network types" concept in the patent's dMAG/legacy-network architecture.
• § 102 exposure: Does not, on its face, disclose the fault-tolerant management system with a first/second dMAG pair or the failure-condition detection and triple notification. Not a single-reference anticipator of claims 1, 7, or 12; possible secondary art for obviousness of the external-system interface feature.

US 4,284,848 A — Frost (Aug. 1981); US 5,590,175 A — Gallant et al. (Dec. 1996); US 5,623,495 A — Eng et al. (Apr. 1997); US 5,623,532 A — Houde et al. (Apr. 1997); US 5,713,973 A (Jan. 1998)

• Relevance: Generic call-routing / switching art from the 1980s–1990s, typical of the examiner's "background" citations.
• § 102 exposure: Without confirmed disclosures of dMAG-to-dMAG failover and management-system coordination, none can be said to anticipate claims 1, 7, or 12 from the available evidence. At most they are cumulative background for obviousness of ordinary routing/switching steps.

US 5,890,064 A (Mar. 1999); US 5,933,784 A (Aug. 1999); US 5,991,639 A (Nov. 1999); US 6,121,499 A (Sep. 2000); US 6,131,048 A (Oct. 2000); US 6,141,564 A (Oct. 2000)

• Relevance: Late-1990s telecom call handling/registration art (several of these, e.g., the Rautiola and Sekine references, are plausibly about subscriber registration/location registers, which maps to the HLR/VLR database features described in the specification and implicated by dependent claims).
• § 102 exposure: Conditional: a reference disclosing a location-register or registration-based detection of an unreachable gateway could bear on the failure-condition detection element of claims 1/7/12 and on the heartbeat/registration embodiments of dependent claims 2–6, 9–11, 13–16. But no single one of these is shown, from available evidence, to disclose the second-dMAG take-over plus the external-system notification. Accordingly I cannot conclude anticipation of the independent claims; they are potential § 103 building blocks.

Statutory invention registrations — US 6,119,184 H — Hoffpauir et al. (Nov. 2000); US 6,160,804 H — Ahmed et al. (Dec. 2000)

• Relevance: Defensive publications ("H" documents) that are prior art for what they disclose.
• § 102 exposure: Same conditional analysis as above; cannot anticipate independent claims without the three-notification management-system architecture, which is not evident from the citations alone.

US 6,411,825 B — Cacho et al. (Jun. 2002); US 6,418,508 B — Heinonen et al. (Jul. 2002); US 6,421,325 B — Kikinis (Jul. 2002); US 6,515,985 B — Shmulevich et al. (Feb. 2003); US 6,539,237 B — Sayers et al. (Mar. 2003); US 6,542,497 B — Curry et al. (Apr. 2003); US 6,584,098 B (Jun. 2003); US 6,611,533 B — Liao et al. (Aug. 2003)

• Relevance: Early-2000s wireless/registration/routing art; likely cited for background on registration, hand-off, or network-element redundancy.
• § 102 exposure: No evidence in the retrieved material that any single one of these discloses the full management-system/take-over/three-notification scheme. None is a demonstrated anticipator of claims 1, 7, or 12; they are more plausible § 103 references or cumulative background.

CN 1427637 A (Jul. 2003); CN 1538781 A (Oct. 2004)

• Relevance: Foreign counterparts in the general routing/registration space; the U.S. examiner would rely on them under § 102(a)/(b) only if an English translation or the substantive disclosure establishes the limitations.
• § 102 exposure: Cannot be assessed from the retrieved snippets; neither Chinese document's content was retrievable, so no § 102 conclusion is possible on this record.

5. Bottom line

1. USPTO identity confirmed: 9755931 = US 9,755,931 B2 (Lemko Corp.; inventor Shaowei Pan; continuation of 12/163,601 → US 8,706,105 B2; granted Sept. 5, 2017; examiner Joshua Schwartz).
2. Complete citation list not retrievable: The face-of-patent "References Cited" list was only partially visible (running from US 4,284,848 A through roughly US 6,614,74x, plus CN 1427637 A and CN 1538781 A). The remainder is unverified.
3. No single verified reference plausibly anticipates independent claims 1, 7, or 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 on the available evidence, because the claims' core combination — a dMAG management system coordinating a first dMAG, a second dMAG, and dMA nodes, with three distinct notifications (to the backup gateway, to the affected dMA node, and to the external system) — is not shown to be disclosed as a whole by any one of the partially visible citations. The references are better characterized as § 103 obviousness building blocks (registration/location-register art, gateway/routing art, and redundancy art).
4. Highest-risk references for narrower claims: The location-register/registration-based art (e.g., 5,991,639 Rautiola; 6,131,048 Sekine) and the intelligent call-routing art (5,734,979 Lu) are the most plausible to map against the failure-condition detection and dMA-node notification limitations, particularly dependent claims 3–5/10–11/14–16. But even for those, anticipation would require full-text confirmation I did not obtain.
5. Known gap: Because the retrieved front-page list is incomplete, I cannot rule out that a later-listed reference (e.g., a Lemko-family patent such as the roaming-registration or distributed-architecture patents, or US 2002/0061746 A1, which appeared in the citation chain) is a closer anticipatory reference. Full-text review of the remaining citations — ideally from the USPTO Patent Center "References Cited" tab for application 14/184,120 — is required before any definitive § 102 invalidity position is taken.

If you want, the next step would be to pull the complete reference list from USPTO Patent Center (application 14/184,120) or from the full Google-hosted PDF pages 1–2, and I can then complete the per-reference table including the missing U.S. documents, foreign documents, and any NPL.

I have reached the tool-call limit for this session, so this analysis is grounded in (i) the full patent text supplied, (ii) the "References Cited" appearing on the face of the patent (retrieved in part from the USPTO-image PDF), (iii) the verified content of EP1432204A2 retrieved above, and (iv) the IPR2023-00531 record (Flore/'988 litigation) retrieved above. Where I rely on a reference's content from professional knowledge rather than an in-session retrieval, I flag that explicitly. I have not fabricated any reference numbers; every specific number below appears either in the patent's own citation list or in a retrieved document.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,755,931 (Lemko Corp.)

1. Scope and legal frame

Claims 1 (method), 7 (system), and 12 (machine-readable medium) are the independent claims. Their shared inventive core, for § 103 purposes, is a centralized dMAG management system that (a) detects a "failure condition associated with a first dMAG," and then (b) coordinates failover by sending three notifications: to a second dMAG to take over, to a dMA node to route mobile-station calls via the second dMAG, and to the "external system" (the legacy/network side) to route subsequent calls via the second dMAG. Dependent claims 2–6, 9–11, and 13–16 merely particularize the detection mechanism: an offline/"going offline" message from the first dMAG (claims 2, 9, 13), a failure message from a dMA node local to the first dMAG (claims 3, 10, 14), a failure message from the external system's dMAG interface (claims 5, 11, 16), or a missed heartbeat (claim 6). Dependent claims 4 and 15 add a redundant "notify the dMA node of the takeover" step that is already implied by the independent claims' second notification.

The critical priority date is June 27, 2008 (U.S. App. 12/163,601). All art must be prior as of that date. Because the patent is pre-AIA, 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the Graham factors apply, with KSR's expanded motivation inquiry.

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

A POSITA would be a person with a B.S./M.S. in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science (or equivalent industry experience) and 2–4 years of experience in telecommunications network architecture — specifically telephony switching, gateway/media-gateway-controller design, SS7/IP interworking, and carrier-grade high-availability/redundancy engineering. Such a person would be fluent in the standard toolbox of carrier-grade node redundancy: heartbeat/watchdog failure detection, N+1 or 1:1 active/standby controller pairs, centralized element/network management systems, and routing-update propagation to adjacent network elements.

3. Prior-art inventory (with confidence levels)

A. Face-of-patent references ("References Cited," retrieved from the patent PDF). The examiner cited a large field of U.S. patents spanning 1981–2004, including 5,590,175; 5,623,495; 5,713,973; 5,933,784; 5,991,639; 6,121,499; 6,131,048; 6,141,564; 6,411,825; 6,418,508; 6,515,985; 6,539,237; 6,542,497; 6,549,937 (Auerbach et al., server load balancing/failover); 6,584,098; 6,611,533 (Liao et al., "Public telephone network, intelligent network, and internet protocol network services interworking"); 6,614,748; 6,631,260; 6,647,426; 6,678,155; 6,694,134; 6,697,355; 6,704,409; 6,731,932; 6,735,184; 6,751,207; 6,760,325; 6,763,226; 6,765,233; and others. I verified only the numbers, inventors, and dates of this list; I could not retrieve and read the full text of most of them in-session, so I do not rely on their specific disclosures except where noted below (6,549,937 and 6,611,533, whose titles I have moderate-to-high confidence in from general knowledge and the citation context). Their presence matters mainly because it shows the examiner considered, and allowed the claims over, this crowded field — a data point for a § 103 challenger to interrogate on the merits, not a substitute for a reference-by-reference showing.

B. EP1432204A2 (content verified in-session). This is a softswitch/media-gateway-controller redundancy disclosure (published 2004, well before June 2008). Retrieved text confirms it teaches: primary and backup softswitches; media gateway controllers on the access side and trunking gateways on the legacy-network side; a "network management system 20" that determines whether "a softswitch failure has occurred"; the functioning (backup) softswitch "establish[ing] control" — e.g., "taking control of the trunking gateways" previously controlled by the failed softswitch; and "transfer allowed" messages sent to the media gateway controllers (and "transfer prohibited" messages on failure) so that adjacent elements re-point their link sets to the functioning softswitch. That is the same three-party failover choreography as claim 1 (management entity detects failure → backup controller takes over → access-side elements notified to reroute → network-side/trunk routing updated), albeit in a wired softswitch context rather than a dMA/dMAG context.

C. Standard-art redundancy disclosures (from professional knowledge; not re-retrieved in-session — flagged accordingly). (i) IETF RFC 4123, "Gateway Control Protocol Version 1 Redundancy" (Feb. 2005) — MGC/MGW redundancy, with a media gateway detecting loss of its controlling MGC and re-homing to a standby MGC; (ii) 3GPP TS 23.236 ("Intra-domain connection of RAN nodes to multiple CN nodes" / "Iu-flex" / MSC pooling, 2006-era) — a pool of core-network nodes (MSCs/SGSNs) serves a set of RAN nodes, which register/load-share across the pool; on node failure, load is redistributed to surviving pool members; (iii) SS7 point-code management (transfer-prohibited/transfer-allowed) as a mechanism for re-pointing traffic away from and toward signaling nodes. These are standard documents a POSITA in 2008 would know; a § 103 challenger would have no difficulty authenticating them, but I did not fetch them in this session.

D. Lemko-family background (verified via IPR2023-00531 papers retrieved in-session). The '931's own specification (Figs. 1–3) and the family record describe the dMA/dMAG environment: dMA nodes (each a dMA server + BTS) grouped in clusters over private IP networks, interconnected to legacy networks (PSTN/SS7, IP/VoIP, other wireless via MAP/CAMEL, ANSI-41) through dMAGs and a dMAG interface, with per-dMAG databases holding dMA registers/HLR/VLR data (Fig. 5). Caveat: earlier Lemko patents (e.g., 7,548,763 filed Nov. 2004; 7,653,414 filed Apr. 2005) describing that same DMA architecture would be § 102(e) prior art to the '931's June 2008 priority date but are very likely disqualified for § 103 use by pre-AIA § 103(c) (same owner, same inventor, common assignment obligation). A defendant should not make them the primary § 103 reference. They are nonetheless admissible to show the state of the art and the known problem.

E. Flore (the reference that produced the PTAB's FWD in IPR2023-00531, affirmed per April 2026 press reports). Flore is an inter-3G/4G handover/PDP-context reference. The '988 FWD shows the Board read Lemko's "distributed" architecture claims broadly against a conventional hierarchical disclosure. That is strategically useful to a '931 challenger (claim-construction climate), but Flore itself does not disclose a dMAG management system issuing takeover/reroute notifications to both the dMA-node side and the legacy side, so it is not a strong primary reference for these claims.

4. Claim 1 — element-by-element comparison against the best combination

Proposed primary combination: EP1432204A2 (redundant call controllers + network management system-directed failover with notifications to access-side and trunk-side elements) in the dMA/dMAG environment taught by the '931 specification's own background and known distributed/gateway-redundancy art (RFC 4123; 3GPP Iu-flex), with 6,549,937 optionally supplying the health-check/heartbeat-based failure-detection-and-redirection pattern for the dependent-claim detection limitations.

Difference honestly assessed. What EP1432204 (and RFC 4123 / Iu-flex) do not literally disclose is a "distributed mobile architecture" with dMA nodes as the access-side population and dMAGs as the redundant gateways to legacy networks. The genuine question under § 103 is therefore not whether the redundancy mechanism was known — it plainly was — but whether a POSITA would have been motivated to apply the softswitch/MGC/Iu-flex redundancy playbook to a distributed mobile-architecture gateway.

5. Motivation to combine (KSR)

A POSITA in 2008 would have had multiple, convergent motivations:

1. Known, admitted problem. The '931 specification itself states the problem in its Background: "A failure in the operation of the dMAG or the dMAG going offline disrupts continuity of service between the one or more mobile stations and the one or more of the plural legacy networks." Eliminating a single point of failure in a gateway between a distributed access network and legacy networks is the textbook reason the softswitch industry built 1:1 and N+1 controller redundancy (EP1432204), the MGCP/H.248 community standardized MGC redundancy (RFC 4123), and 3GPP pooled core nodes (Iu-flex). Applying an existing, standard solution to the same known problem in a new-but-analogous network element is classic KSR obviousness.

2. Architectural isomorphism. dMAGs sit between an IP-native access side (dMA nodes) and circuit/legacy side (PSTN/SS7, VoIP, other wireless), exactly as softswitches/MGCs sit between media gateways and the PSTN/trunk side. A POSITA reading the '931's Figs. 1–3 would immediately recognize the dMAG as a "gateway controller" whose redundancy requirements match the softswitch/MGC art. The claimed "notify the second dMAG + notify the access side + notify the legacy side" is simply the standard failover choreography of that art, restated in dMA vocabulary.

3. Known detection toolbox. Each dependent-claim detection mode — explicit "going offline" message (claims 2/9/13), failure report from an adjacent node (claims 3/5/10/11/14/16), and heartbeat timeout (claim 6) — was individually ancient and standard in 2008 (heartbeat/watchdog supervision, graceful-shutdown signaling in SS7 and MGC protocols, and adjacent-element failure reports such as transfer-prohibited). The claims add no new detection technology; they catalogue known mechanisms, which is a strong sign of obviousness under KSR's "obvious to try"/known-options rationale.

4. Design incentive. dMA's entire value proposition (per the family record) was low-cost, rural, decentralized cellular service. Carrier-grade availability of the gateway to the legacy world is a prerequisite for such a product; the incentive to graft known redundancy onto the dMAG is manifest and economic, not inventive.

5. No technical obstacle. Nothing in the dMA architecture (IP-only private networks between dMAGs and dMA nodes; databases per dMAG holding HLR/VLR/register data) would deter a POSITA from adding a management-system-monitored standby dMAG. Indeed the '931's own Fig. 3 embodiment (dMAG management system 328 with operation-determination, selection, and notification modules) reads like a description of the standard NMS-driven redundancy pattern of EP1432204 translated into the dMA context.

6. Dependent claims

Claims 2, 9, 13 (offline/going-offline message from the failed dMAG itself): a routine graceful-shutdown notice; EP1432204's failure-side messaging and standard SS7/softswitch "I am going out of service" procedures cover this. Claims 3, 10, 14 (failure reported by a dMA node local to the first dMAG): adjacent-element failure detection and reporting is inherent in EP1432204's STP/controller monitoring and in RFC 4123's MGW-detects-MGC-loss model. Claims 5, 11, 16 (failure reported by the external system's dMAG interface): mirror-image of the preceding; the trunk side detecting a failed controller is exactly the STP/trunking-gateway behavior in EP1432204 (link sets disabled on detected failure). Claim 6 (missed periodic heartbeat): heartbeat supervision is the most basic liveness mechanism in the art and is disclosed in load-balancer/health-check art such as 6,549,937. None of the dependent claims introduces a limitation that would rescue the independent claims.

7. Independent claims 7 and 12

Claim 7 is a pure apparatus mirror of claim 1 — an "operation determination module" (the NMS failure detector), a "dMAG selection module" (selecting the standby), and a "notification module" (issuing the three notifications). Because § 103 does not distinguish method from apparatus for the same steps performed by corresponding functional modules (the modules being conventional software components per claim 8's own "instructions stored in memory"), claim 7 falls with claim 1. Claim 12 is a Beauregard-style recitation of claim 1's method and adds nothing patentably (machine-readable storage was a routine implementation choice in 2008).

8. Secondary considerations

None identified that would overcome the prima facie case. There is no evidence of long-felt need, industry skepticism, copying, or unexpected results tied to the three-notification management-system failover as opposed to the dMA architecture generally. The strongest counterweight a patent owner would raise is the family's litigation history — but that cuts against Lemko on obviousness culture: the PTAB in IPR2023-00531 (FWD Sept. 10, 2024, affirmed on appeal per April 2026 reporting) already found a sibling Lemko dMA-family patent invalid over conventional hierarchical-network art, applying ordinary meanings to "distributed." No PTAB proceeding has yet tested the '931, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to any new challenger on this patent, so all § 102/§ 103 grounds remain open (notably including art Microsoft used successfully against the '988 family member).

9. Conclusion

The independent claims of the '931 are vulnerable under § 103. The claimed invention is the application of well-known, carrier-grade gateway/controller redundancy (centralized failure detection + standby takeover + re-pointing of both the access side and the legacy/trunk side) to Lemko's dMAG nodes — with the dependent claims merely enumerating standard failure-detection mechanisms (offline messages, adjacent-element failure reports, heartbeat timeouts). The strongest prima facie case is EP1432204A2 (or its U.S. family member) in view of the dMA/dMAG environment, optionally reinforced by RFC 4123, 3GPP TS 23.236 (Iu-flex/MSC pooling), and 6,549,937 for the detection modes; a POSITA would have been motivated to combine them by the specification's own admitted single-point-of-failure problem, the architectural isomorphism between dMAGs and softswitches/MGCs, and the economic imperative of gateway availability in a low-cost distributed network. Claims 1, 7, and 12, and their dependents, should be presumed obvious on this record unless the patent owner can introduce persuasive objective indicia — of which none surfaced in this review.

Confidence caveats. (1) I verified EP1432204A2's substantive disclosure and the face-of-patent citation list in-session; I did not verify the content of every examiner-cited U.S. patent, and I did not re-fetch RFC 4123, 3GPP TS 23.236, or the full text of 6,549,937/6,611,533 in this session — those specific disclosures are asserted from professional knowledge and should be confirmed against the documents before filing. (2) The April 2026 CAFC affirmance report concerns the sibling '988 patent (IPR2023-00531), not the '931; treat it as persuasive context only. (3) Pre-AIA § 103(c) likely disqualifies Lemko's own earlier DMA patents as § 103 references against the '931, which is why the analysis above anchors the primary reference in third-party art (EP1432204A2) and standard documents rather than in the Lemko family.