US 9836257

Summary of US Patent 9836257 (US9836257B2)

Bibliographic data (confirmed by the fetched patent record and multiple corroborating search results)

• Title: Mobile information apparatus that includes intelligent wireless display, wireless direct display, or transfer of digital content for playing over air the digital content at smart televisions, television controllers, or audio output devices
• Patent / Application No.: US9836257B2 / US10/053,765 (do not confuse with similar numbers; the application number "10/053,765" as printed)
• Inventors: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu
• Assignee (as listed): Flexiworld Technologies Inc. (original assignee; Google Patents lists Flexiworld Technologies Inc as current assignee)
• Priority date: 2001-01-19
• Filing date: 2002-01-18
• Issue (grant) date: 2017-12-05
• Earlier publication: US20020097433A1 (published 2002-07-25)
• Legal status: Active; adjusted expiration listed as 2028-07-25

Abstract

Uncertainty noted: The abstract was not present in the fetched patent text (the record provided to me was truncated before the abstract/claims section), and my web searches did not return the verbatim abstract or claim text. I am therefore not able to quote the official abstract or the exact claim language with authority, and I will not fabricate it.

Plain-language overview of the invention (from the specification, which is authoritative)

Based on the specification (the "Definitions" and detailed description sections), the patent is directed to universal/pervasive wireless digital output from a mobile information apparatus to output devices. In plain terms, the invention describes:

1. Mobile information apparatus (e.g., PDA, smartphone, hand-held computer, digital camera) that wirelessly outputs digital content ("over the air") to output devices such as smart televisions, television controllers, monitors/projectors, audio output devices, and printers, without requiring installation of device-specific drivers for each output device.

2. Shared raster image processing (RIP): The information apparatus performs part of the image processing (e.g., rasterization) and generates an "intermediate output data" containing rasterized image(s), while the output device or an associated output controller performs the remaining device-dependent RIP operations (e.g., halftoning, color space conversion, color matching) before rendering.

3. Output controller architecture: The patent describes an output controller that can be internal to, or external to ("box" / print server / combined controller with a conventional printer controller), an output device; it interprets/decodes the intermediate output data and converts it into engine-ready data.

4. Device discovery and profiles: The mobile apparatus and output device communicate (e.g., Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11, infrared, or wired links); an output device profile describing the device's capabilities may be uploaded to the information apparatus so it can learn the device's capabilities without a dedicated driver.

5. Output data formats: The intermediate output data may include rasterized images (optionally using Mixed Raster Content / MRC layered encoding and compression), reducing file size and making the data more universally acceptable across different brands/models of output devices.

Independent claims

Uncertainty noted (important): I could not retrieve the text of the independent claims from the fetched record or from the web searches performed (the provided patent text ends mid-specification, and search results did not include the claims section). I therefore cannot state the precise independent claim language, number of independent claims, or their exact elements with confidence. Any claim-by-claim breakdown would be speculation, so I am deliberately not inventing claim text or numbering.

What can be said with moderate confidence from the specification's structure is that the claimed subject matter centers on: (a) a mobile information apparatus configured for wireless discovery of and wireless communication with an output device (e.g., smart TV, TV controller, audio device), and (b) transmission/transfer of digital content over the air for rendering at that output device. But the specific limitations of the granted independent claims require verification from the USPTO full-text or Google Patents claims page.

CAFC 2026 docket search

A search for "9836257" in CAFC 2026 appeal dockets returned no results. The patent record does, however, note related litigation: PTAB IPR2022-01267 (settled) and IPR2022-00775 (final written decision), plus district court cases in the Texas Western and Texas Southern District Courts (e.g., 6:21-cv-00767 and 4:24-cv-02691). No Federal Circuit 2026 appeal tied to this specific patent number was found in my searches.

Recommended verification

To obtain the authoritative abstract and independent claims, check the USPTO Patent Center/Full-Text (patft/patentcenter) record for US9836257 or the Google Patents claims tab for US9836257B2 — neither was accessible in full during this session.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 9,836,257. Let me search multiple sources.

I found several matters. Let me dig deeper into the district court cases, including the W.D. Tex. and S.D. Tex. cases flagged on the patent's Google Patents page.

Let me get more detail on the Sony and Hisense cases, and confirm whether the '257 patent was actually asserted in the N.D. Ga. Hisense action.

Based on my research across Docket Alarm, RPX, Patexia, PACER-related sources, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, and PTAB records, here is the known litigation involving US Patent 9,836,257 ("the '257 patent"). I've separated district court litigation from PTAB (IPR) proceedings.

District Court Litigation

1. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Roku, Inc.
• Jurisdiction / Court: [U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division](/courts/western-district-of-texas-waco) (Judge Alan D. Albright)
• Case No.: 6:21-cv-00767-ADA
• Filing date: July 27, 2021
• Patents at issue: The '257 patent (claim 27 asserted) plus U.S. Patent Nos. 7,944,577, 9,389,822, and 10,846,031. Accused products included Roku streaming devices, the Roku Mobile App, Roku TV OS, and Roku TV products.
• Outcome / Status: Settled. The parties entered into a Patent License Agreement on or about October 21, 2022, resolving all disputes concerning the '257 patent; they jointly moved to dismiss the case with prejudice and to terminate the related IPR (see below). The case was dismissed with prejudice in 2022.

2. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation

• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Sony Corporation
• Jurisdiction / Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Judge Rodney Gilstrap)
• Case No.: 2:23-cv-00616
• Filing date: December 19, 2023
• Patents at issue: The '257 patent was one of 14–15 patents asserted (including 9,836,259, 9,042,811, 9,965,233, 10,846,031, 10,846,031, and others), covering Bravia TVs, PlayStation consoles, Xperia phones, soundbars, speakers, and headphones.
• Outcome / Status: Dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on May 29, 2025, with each party bearing its own costs and fees. No merits ruling; no damages awarded.

3. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. HP, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: HP, Inc.
• Jurisdiction / Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Judge Charles Eskridge)
• Case No.: 4:24-cv-02691
• Filing date: July 19, 2024
• Patents at issue: This is the S.D. Tex. case flagged on the '257 patent's Google Patents litigation record; the '257 patent is among the patents identified in connection with this case.
• Outcome / Status: Active / pending as of the last docket entries reviewed (late 2024). HP answered with a jury demand and counterclaim (Oct. 7, 2024) and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Flexiworld filed an amended complaint (Oct. 28, 2024). No final resolution identified as of the search date.

4. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al.

• Plaintiff: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Defendants: Hisense Co., Ltd. and numerous affiliates (e.g., Hisense USA Corporation, Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd., Hisense International Co., Ltd., Qingdao Hisense Electronics Industry Holdings Co., Ltd., and others)
• Jurisdiction / Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
• Case No.: 1:22-cv-04338
• Filing date: October 31, 2022
• Patents at issue: Listed in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as involving the '257 patent.
• Outcome / Status: Not confirmed in my searches. I could not verify a final disposition from the available sources, so I cannot state the outcome with confidence.

PTAB / IPR Proceedings (challenges to the '257 patent)

5. Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. — IPR2022-00775

• Petitioner: Unified Patents, LLC
• Patent Owner: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Filing date: April 8, 2022
• Institution: Granted November 8, 2022 (claims 27 and 28)
• Outcome / Status: Final Written Decision (Nov. 1, 2023) — the Board determined that Unified Patents failed to prove the challenged claims (27 and 28) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and dismissed Patent Owner's revised contingent motion to amend. The patent was upheld (panel: APJs McMillin, Ogden, and Dougal).

6. Roku, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. — IPR2022-01267

• Petitioner: Roku, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
• Filing date: July 29, 2022
• Outcome / Status: Terminated October 31, 2022 — terminated pre-institution pursuant to a joint motion to terminate based on the parties' Patent License Agreement (which also resolved the W.D. Tex. litigation above).

Notes on exclusions (per your instruction not to return similar numbers)

• A September 2025 Flexiworld suit against LG Electronics (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division) asserts 9,836,259 — not 9,836,257 — so it is not included above.
• Related Flexiworld v. Roku actions (6:20-cv-00819, 6:21-cv-00680, 6:21-cv-00882) involve other patents (e.g., 8,989,064, 10,346,114, 10,740,066) and were not confirmed as asserting the '257 patent.

Confidence caveats

• I have high confidence on the Roku, Sony, Unified Patents IPR, and Roku IPR matters (multiple corroborating sources, including PTAB records and PACER-derived dockets).
• The HP case status is current only through late-2024 docket entries; I could not confirm its present-day status or whether the '257 patent remains asserted after the amended complaint.
• The Hisense case's involvement of the '257 patent rests on the Stanford NPE database listing, and I could not confirm its outcome; treat that entry with some caution.

Two IPRs are surfacing — one by Unified Patents (IPR2022-00775, with a Final Written Decision) and one by Roku (IPR2022-01267, settled pre-institution). Let me dig into the details of each, check for appeals, and confirm there are no other proceedings.

Excellent — rich detail on both proceedings. Now let me verify the institution decision date for IPR2022-00775, check whether the FWD was appealed to the Federal Circuit, and identify the claims/grounds Roku challenged in IPR2022-01267.

I have enough verified detail to compile the full picture. Note that I could not complete an independent CAFC-docket check within this session, and the Roku petition's specific challenged claims were not retrievable — I flag both explicitly rather than guess.

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trials have been filed on US 9,836,257: one concluded by Final Written Decision sustaining every challenged claim (claims 27–28 — a clean patent-owner win), and one terminated by settlement before institution — zero claims invalidated, zero active proceedings, zero institution denials — so the bottom line for a defendant is that the patent has been attacked twice and is hardened, not narrowed: the smart-TV/audio wireless-output claims (27–28) survived a full trial on the merits, and no claim of the patent has ever been canceled by the PTAB.

Flag on the structured data: The "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trials. That appears stale. The patent's own Google Patents record, Docket Alarm, ipverse, and PTAB litigation blogs independently confirm both IPR2022-00775 (Unified Patents) and IPR2022-01267 (Roku). Treat the two proceedings below as real and current; the ODP block should not be relied on.

IPR2022-00775 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-04-08 (Petition, Paper 1)
• Status: Terminated — Final Written Decision issued; "Final Written Decision Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable Dismissing Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)" (Paper 41, dated 2023-11-01; docketed 2023-11-02)
• Judge panel: APJs Terrence W. McMillin, Christopher L. Ogden (author of the FWD), and Brent M. Dougal (oral hearing held 2023-08-29 by video)
• Petition grounds: Claims 27 (independent) and 28 (dependent on 27) only, both under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
  • Ground 1: obvious over Olgaard (US 7,849,198, Ex. 1005) in view of Moghadam (US 5,917,542, Ex. 1006)
  • Ground 2: obvious over Acharya (U.S. published application, Ex. 1007) in view of Griffiths (US 7,136,999, Ex. 1008)
  • Petitioner's expert: Dr. Immanuel Freedman (Ex. 1003)
• Institution decision: Granted — instituted on claims 27 and 28 on both grounds. The Institution Decision (available at bannerwitcoff.com, posted 2022-12) issued in late 2022 — the exact decision date was not verified in this session, but the trial timeline (hearing 2023-08-29; FWD 2023-11-01, ~12 months after institution) is consistent with a late-2022 institution. At the preliminary stage the panel found Unified "reasonably likely to prevail," including on the contested security/authentication-before-802.11-connection limitation, crediting Moghadam for teaching IEEE 802.11 and the known practice of authenticating before establishing a Wi-Fi connection.
• Final Written Decision (2023-11-01, Paper 41): Claims 27 and 28 held NOT unpatentable on either ground; Flexiworld's Revised Contingent Motion to Amend (substitute claim 41) was dismissed as moot. The decisive holding was priority-date/prior-art status: the panel found, under a rule-of-reason corroboration analysis, that Flexiworld proved conception of claims 27–28 no later than 2000-10-22 — corroborated by inventor (William Ho Chang) testimony plus file metadata of draft provisional applications ("the most reliable indicator of the latest date each draft was completed") — and reasonably continuous diligence to reduction to practice. Because Olgaard's effective date is 2000-10-24 and Acharya's is 2000-12-22, neither was prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e), and Unified's § 103 grounds (both resting on those references) collapsed. (See the PTAB Litigation Blog and Jones Day/Mondaq write-ups summarizing the same holding.)
• Settlement / termination: None — the case ran to a Final Written Decision.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal was identified in any source reviewed in this session (Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, rarely appeals FWDs it loses). The CAFC docket was not independently verified — recommend a CourtListener/CAFC docket search for "IPR2022-00775" before relying on finality.
• Defensive value: For any defendant facing claims 27–28, the Board has already sustained them after full trial — a fresh IPR on those claims needs art that genuinely predates a 2000-10-22 conception date, not the late-2000 references Unified tried. This FWD is affirmative ammunition for the patent owner and makes an IPR-based kill on these claims materially harder. FWD link: Docket Alarm — Paper 41; Institution Decision PDF; case docket (ipverse).

IPR2022-01267 — Roku, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-07-29 (Petition for Inter Partes Review of US Patent No. 9,836,257, Paper 1)
• Status: Terminated — "Termination Decision Pre DI settlement" (Paper 9, 2022-10-31)
• Judge panel: APJs Brent M. Dougal, Christopher L. Ogden, and Terrence W. McMillin (per Docket Alarm — the same panel that later decided IPR2022-00775)
• Petition grounds: The petition (Paper 1) sought IPR of the '257 patent, but the specific challenged claims and grounds were not verifiable in this session (no institution decision was ever issued to identify them, and the petition text was not retrieved). Do not assume they matched Unified's claims 27–28.
• Institution decision: None — the proceeding was terminated before any decision on institution ("Pre DI" = pre-decision-on-institution).
• Final Written Decision: None issued.
• Settlement / termination: The parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 7, 2022-10-27) together with the Settlement Agreement under a Business Confidential Information Treatment Request (Paper 8, 2022-10-27); the Board granted termination (Paper 9, 2022-10-31). Settlement terms are confidential and were not disclosed in any public source reviewed.
• Appeal: Not applicable (no FWD).
• Defensive value: No merits determination and no estoppel attaches (estoppel under § 315(e)(2) requires a final written decision). The significance is strategic: Roku — a smart-TV platform maker squarely within the patent's claimed smart-TV/audio-output scope — chose to settle pre-institution rather than litigate, a signal that Flexiworld extracts value from this family and that the claims are not easy to knock out. Case references: Unified Patents portal; Docket Alarm docket.

Strategic summary

Claim-level landscape — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. No claim of US 9,836,257 has ever been canceled. Claims 27 and 28 are SUSTAINED (IPR2022-00775 FWD, 2023-11-01), and the patent owner's attempted substitute claim 41 was dismissed as moot (no amendment entered — the original claims stand unamended). All other claims (1–26 and 29 onward) are UNTESTED in AIA trials; neither petition challenged them. Because the patent remains Active with an adjusted expiration of 2028-07-25, the full claim set is currently enforceable, with 27–28 carrying the added imprimatur of a PTAB trial win.

Estoppel landscape (§ 315(e)(2)). Unified Patents and its real parties in interest/privies are estopped from raising in district court or the ITC the § 103 grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-00775 — i.e., obviousness over Olgaard+Moghadam and Acharya+Griffiths and close variants. That matters little in practice because Unified is a defensive aggregator, not an asserting plaintiff. A new defendant is not bound by that estoppel and could theoretically re-run those same combinations, but the Board's priority-date finding is the real obstacle: any reference with an effective date after 2000-10-22 will face the same "swear behind" showing Flexiworld already made successfully (conception corroborated by inventor testimony and draft-provisional file metadata; diligence through reduction to practice). Fresh attacks should therefore focus on (i) art with effective dates before October 2000, (ii) § 102(a)/(b) public-use/on-sale or printed-publication art not vulnerable to the § 102(e) date analysis, or (iii) § 112 grounds (written description, enablement, indefiniteness), which have never been tried against this patent. Roku faces no estoppel (no FWD), and its confidential settlement leaves all grounds open for it — but also leaves no Board record for a defendant to exploit.

Pattern signals. Two petitions, two different petitioners (Roku, a product company, and Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator), both assigned to the same PTAB panel (McMillin/Ogden/Dougal) — a sign the Board grouped this patent's cases, not of coordination. Flexiworld defended aggressively: it prevailed on the merits IPR using priority-date evidence dating the family's conception to October 2000, filed a contingent motion to amend (dismissed as moot), and is simultaneously litigating in Texas (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00767; S.D. Tex. 4:24-cv-02691) with related PTAB activity elsewhere in the family (e.g., IPR2022-00775's sibling cases and settlements). The family-wide picture — long pendency (filed 2002, granted 2017), multiple continuation children, active district-court enforcement, and two IPRs survived — describes a well-defended, persistently-asserted patent family rather than a weak one.

Recommended next steps

• There are no canceled claims — do not approach this patent expecting an IPR kill. If the demand letter or complaint cites claims 27 and/or 28, the Unified FWD is directly on point: quote the disposition ("Unified has not shown that either of the challenged claims are unpatentable on either of the grounds of the Petition" — IPR2022-00775, Paper 41, 2023-11-01) and use it to demand the patent owner concede that late-2000 references (Olgaard, Acharya) are non-starters. Link the FWD directly: Paper 41 (Docket Alarm) or retrieve Paper 41 from PTAB E2E.
• No active proceedings → no pending PTAB milestones (no institution-decision deadline, oral-hearing date, or FWD due date to track). The § 315(b) one-year bar from service of a complaint is the only clock that matters if you are a new defendant considering your own IPR — and it is a hard deadline.
• If the asserted claims are outside 27–28 (e.g., 1–26 or 29+), they are untested — a fresh IPR is theoretically available, but budget for the priority-date fight: Flexiworld's October-2000 conception evidence will likely be asserted against any post-2000-10-22 reference, family-wide. Prioritize pre-October-2000 art and § 112 grounds, which no petitioner has yet raised.
• Verify two loose ends before relying on finality: (1) run a CourtListener/CAFC docket search for any appeal of IPR2022-00775 (none found in this session; Unified rarely appeals, but confirm), and (2) retrieve the IPR2022-01267 petition (Paper 1) from PTAB E2E to confirm which claims Roku challenged — the answer affects whether those claims carry any settlement signal for your product.

Inventors

• William Ho Chang — co-founder of Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (Portland, Oregon). The IPR2022-00775 record (Patent Owner's exhibits, e.g., "Flexiworld Homepage," "Portland Business Journal 2002/2003") shows Flexiworld was the inventors' own startup, so Chang's employer at filing was the assignee itself. He is named as an inventor on essentially the entire Flexiworld family (dozens of continuations from the 2001–2002 priority date) and signed the recorded assignments.
• Christina Ying Liu — co-founder of Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.; same employer-at-filing situation as Chang; co-signor on the recorded assignments; co-inventor across the family.

Unusual pattern noted: none of the classic "inventors depart within 12 months" red flag. Both inventors are the assignee's founders and stayed with it — the ownership story here is inventor-founded company, not inventor-departure-then-fire-sale.

Original assignee

• Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. — named on the issued patent and listed as the current assignee on Google Patents.
• Line of business: Founded circa 2000 as a Portland, Oregon wireless/mobile software company developing "universal output" / mobile-printing technology (the subject matter of this patent). The specification and IPR exhibits describe a technology company, and there is no evidence in my sources that Flexiworld ever shipped a product embodying the '257 claims — its public activity since at least 2021 is patent assertion and licensing (suits against Roku, Sony, HP, Hisense; IPR defense).
• Current status: Operating — but as a patent-licensing/assertion entity, not a product company. It remains the owner and plaintiff in active litigation (e.g., S.D. Tex. 4:24-cv-02691 vs. HP, still pending per the last docket entries reviewed).

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center record for US 9836257 could not be pulled directly in this session (the assignmentcenter.uspto.gov interface was not reachable via my tools). What follows is the recorded-assignment history as evidenced by the Google Patents legal-events feed for US9836257B2 (which mirrors USPTO assignment data) and by Flexiworld's own litigation pleadings. Reel/frame numbers and correspondents for the '257 patent's two recorded events are not available from the sources I could access — I am not going to invent them. Both recorded events are inventor-to-company assignments, and no assignment out of Flexiworld appears anywhere in the record.

• Executed date not shown / recorded 2008-09-11 — Reel/frame: not available from sources accessed (corroborating family-wide inventor→Flexiworld assignments appear in Flexiworld complaints on reels such as 028733/0064, 039816/0200, 042385/0202 — but those specific reels are pleaded for other family patents, e.g., '402, '596, '072, '178, and should not be attributed to this patent)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (confirmatory)
  • Assignor: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu
  • Assignee: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not determinable from sources accessed
  • Context: Confirmatory inventor→company assignment recorded ~6.5 years after the 2002 filing — typical chain-of-title cleanup (this application later spawned many continuations).

• Executed date not shown / recorded 2012-10-11 — Reel/frame: not available from sources accessed

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (confirmatory)
  • Assignor: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu
  • Assignee: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not determinable from sources accessed
  • Context: Second confirmatory inventor→company assignment; recorded ~9 years before this patent's first known assertion suit (Roku, 2021), so it is not a pre-litigation transfer.

Finding: No post-issuance assignments, no changes of name, no mergers, no security interests, and no transfers to any LLC, aggregator, or third party are recorded. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. has owned this patent continuously from filing through today. That is itself a meaningful finding: the owner is the original assignee, and the NPE-style activity is being conducted by the original assignee directly, not through a purchased shell.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9836257
    2001 : Priority date Jan 19
    2002 : Filed Jan 18
    2008 : Confirmatory assignment to Flexiworld
    2012 : Second confirmatory assignment
    2017 : Patent issued Dec 5
    2021 : First suit vs Roku W D Tex
    2022 : Unified Patents IPR filed
         : Roku IPR filed then settled
    2023 : IPR final decision upholds patent
    2024 : Suit vs HP S D Tex

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent never moved from an operating company to a licensing-only LLC. It has been held continuously by Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (recorded assignments 2008-09-11 and 2012-10-11, both inventor→Flexiworld). No "IP Holdings"-style assignee appears anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present (the one strong signal). The current (and only) assignee, Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., is a high-frequency patent plaintiff: it asserted this patent (claim 27) against Roku (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00767-ADA, settled 2022), and is a plaintiff against Sony (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00616), HP (S.D. Tex. 4:24-cv-02691), and Hisense (N.D. Ga. 1:22-cv-04338), with the family asserted against LG as well (9,836,259 — a different patent, noted for exclusion). The '257 patent was also challenged by Unified Patents in IPR2022-00775, and Unified Patents' IPR program is targeted at NPE assertions; the Board's Final Written Decision (Nov. 1, 2023) found the challenged claims not proven unpatentable, leaving Flexiworld's assertion campaign intact.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. The correspondent of record for the two recorded assignments could not be retrieved in this session (USPTO Assignment Center not directly reachable). Both recordings are routine inventor→assignee events, so a repeat correspondent here would merely indicate portfolio administration, not an NPE tell. (For reference, Flexiworld's PTAB docket entries in IPR2022-00775 show defense by counsel including pro hac vice admission of T. William Kennedy; I have no basis to tie that to the assignment correspondents.)

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Exactly two recorded assignments, both between the same parties (Chang/Liu → Flexiworld), four years apart. No chained LLCs, no common-address shells.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The most recent recorded assignment (2012-10-11) predates the first known suit on this patent (Roku, filed 2021-07-27) by ~9 years — far outside the 6-month window.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No evidence Flexiworld ever filed Chapter 7/11; no court-supervised patent sale.

7. Privateering — not present / unclear. No evidence an operating company transferred this patent to Flexiworld to attack competitors on its behalf. Flexiworld is the original assignee asserting on its own behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain terminates at Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., not RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. (Inverse observation: Unified Patents attacked the patent via IPR rather than acquiring it.)

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The assignment chain itself is clean and flat — inventors to Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. in 2008 and 2012, with no shell transfers, cascades, or pre-litigation moves (signals 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 all negative). The NPE characterization rests on one strong signal plus context: the sole assignee, Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., is a non-practicing, high-frequency plaintiff that has asserted this exact patent against Roku, Sony, HP, and Hisense across multiple districts (recording dates 2008-09-11 and 2012-10-11; Roku suit 6:21-cv-00767-ADA filed 2021-07-27), and was itself targeted by Unified Patents in IPR2022-00775 (Final Written Decision Nov. 1, 2023 upholding the patent). Because I could not pull the USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame and correspondent records directly, the remaining signals (repeat correspondent, privateering) are unresolved, which caps confidence at moderate rather than high.

Verification: search US 9836257 at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent number search; both the 2008-09-11 and 2012-10-11 inventor→Flexiworld recordings should return, with reel/frame and correspondent that I could not retrieve here).

A. Scope, method, and database-access caveat

Direct USPTO full-text access was not available in this session. I could not open the USPTO Patent Center/PatFT record or the "Patent Citations" (backward-citations) tab of the Google Patents page for US 9,836,257 — the authoritative patent text previously fetched ends mid-specification (at FIG. 7C), before the citations and claims sections, and the search snippets did not surface the face-of-the-patent reference list.

What I could verify from live search results:

1. The patent itself — US9836257B2 (application 10/053,765), Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., priority 2001-01-19, filed 2002-01-18, granted 2017-12-05, entitled "Mobile information apparatus that includes intelligent wireless display, wireless direct display, or transfer of digital content for playing over air the digital content at smart televisions, television controllers, or audio output devices." This is the correct number — no similar numbers are substituted. (Excluded: 9,836,259, asserted against LG in E.D. Tex. Sept. 2025; and the other '257-family numbers listed on the record.)

2. The strongest, litigation-verified prior-art set for this patent — the Exhibit List of the IPR2022-00775 petition (Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., PTAB, filed Apr. 8, 2022), which challenged claims 27 and 28 of the '257 patent, plus the PTAB oral-hearing transcript (Aug. 29, 2023) and Final Written Decision (Nov. 1, 2023). This is the most relevant prior art identified for the challenged claims, so I use it as the core of the analysis below.

Important framing: The exact text of claims 27–28 was not retrievable verbatim in this session. From the hearing transcript and litigation record, claim 27 is a method claim directed to transferring digital content from a mobile wireless information apparatus (e.g., a smartphone or information pad) to a wireless output device associated with a television, via short-range wireless communication; claim 28 is a dependent claim. The IPR grounds were statutory § 103 grounds, not § 102; I provide § 102 anticipation potential below with that caveat.

B. Most relevant prior art (from IPR2022-00775) and § 102 analysis

All references below appear in the petition's Table of Exhibits (DocketAlarm mirror of IPR2022-00775, petition filed 2026-04-08-2022; PTAB hearing transcript; Patexia exhibit list).

Claims implicated: The IPR petition challenged claims 27 and 28 (instituted Nov. 8, 2022). Claim 27 is the independent method claim (mobile wireless information apparatus → short-range wireless transfer of digital content → wireless output device associated with a television); claim 28 depends from it. Olgaard is the only reference with plausible stand-alone § 102 anticipation potential against claim 27, and even that was not established — the Board rejected the challenges on § 103 grounds.

C. Outcome of the prior-art challenge (important context)

• IPR2022-00775 (Unified Patents): Final Written Decision Nov. 1, 2023 — "Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable"; claims 27 and 28 were upheld; Patent Owner's revised contingent motion to amend was dismissed. Panel: APJs McMillin, Ogden, Dougal.
• IPR2022-01267 (Roku): terminated pre-institution (Oct. 31, 2022) after settlement/license.
• District court: Claim 27 was asserted against Roku (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00767, settled 2022); the '257 patent was also among patents in the E.D. Tex. Sony case (2:23-cv-00616, dismissed with prejudice May 29, 2025) and is associated with the pending S.D. Tex. HP case (4:24-cv-02669) and the N.D. Ga. Hisense case (1:22-cv-04338, outcome unverified).

Net effect: As of the FWD, no reference — including Olgaard — was found to render claims 27–28 unpatentable, and no § 102 anticipation finding exists anywhere in the record I retrieved.

D. What I could not verify (do not treat as exhaustive)

1. The face-of-patent "Patent Citations" (examiner-cited references) for US9836257B2 were not retrieved. The analysis above is therefore built on the petitioner-asserted prior art from IPR2022-00775, not on the examiner's "References Cited" list from the file wrapper. These two sets overlap only partially.
2. Exact filing/issue dates for Olgaard, Moghadam, Acharya, Griffiths, Chuah, and App. 09/695,518 were not present in the retrieved snippets. All of them except Acharya (a 2002 publication) and Chuah (likely a 2001 grant) are pre-2011 documents and thus prior art to the '257 patent's 2017 grant under both pre-AIA and AIA § 102 analyses — but I will not state specific dates I could not verify.
3. Verbatim claim 27/28 language — still needs verification from USPTO Patent Center or the Google Patents claims tab for US9836257B2.

Recommended verification path: Pull the "Citations" tab of https://patents.google.com/patent/US9836257B2/en (Patent Citations + Non-Patent Citations) and the USPTO Patent Center full-text/IFW for application 10/053,765 to obtain the examiner-cited list; then cross-check each against claim 27's elements for a complete § 102 chart. The IPR exhibits above (Olgaard at minimum) should be the priority for any anticipation/obviousness analysis of claim 27.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — US Patent 9,836,257 (claims 27–28)

Preliminary note on sources

The "Prior Art" section referenced in the task was not included in the materials provided to me. I have therefore grounded this analysis in the two available authoritative sources of prior art:

1. The art actually applied against the patent in litigation — specifically the two § 103 grounds in Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., IPR2022-00775 (PTAB), which challenged claims 27 and 28, the only claims that have been the subject of a fully litigated § 103 analysis of this patent. That proceeding resulted in a Final Written Decision (Nov. 1, 2023) determining no challenged claim unpatentable.
2. The references cited on the face of the patent (from the USPTO grant record via uspto.report), which I use to construct additional hypothetical combinations.

Key litigation context (from the earlier litigation summary, corroborated by the PTAB record): the Roku IPR (IPR2022-01267) was terminated pre-institution after settlement, and the W.D. Tex. Roku case settled. The Unified Patents IPR is therefore the only merits decision on § 103.

1. Claims in scope

Claim 27 (representative; reproduced from the PTAB Institution Decision in IPR2022-00775, with Unified Patents' element numbering) is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim requiring a wireless information apparatus having a display screen, GUI, operating system, processor, and wireless communication unit(s), executing a method of:

• [27.6] establishing a wireless connection to a wireless output controller device associated with a television or audio output device, compatible with IEEE 802.11 or Bluetooth;
• [27.7] implementing a security/authentication procedure transmitting one or more of a username, password, ID number, security key, or voice over the wireless connection;
• [27.8] subsequent to that procedure, establishing a wireless local area network (WLAN) connection via an IEEE 802.11-compatible unit;
• [27.9] receiving, over the GUI, an indication of selected digital content (audio and/or video); and
• [27.10] wirelessly transferring output data over the established WLAN connection to the controller for rendering at the TV/audio device.

Claim 28 depends from claim 27 (text not retrieved in full). Independent apparatus claims (e.g., claim 32) and additional medium claims (e.g., claim 36) are similar in thrust: wireless discovery of an output device, authentication/security, secure connection (Bluetooth or 802.11), GUI selection of audio/video content, and wireless transfer of output data to a distinct output device (TV, wireless output controller, projector, display, or audio device).

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

For this analysis I would define the PHOSITA as someone with a bachelor's degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or equivalent, plus roughly 2–5 years of experience in mobile computing, short-range wireless communications (Bluetooth/IEEE 802.11), and consumer A/V output device design (TVs, set-top/controller boxes, audio devices), or equivalent industry experience. This is my construction; the PTAB decisions in this family do not publish a materially different standard.

3. Combination 1: Olgaard (US 7,849,198) in view of Moghadam (US 5,917,542)

What each reference discloses

• Olgaard discloses a "wireless link" — a mobile, PDA-like device (optionally with a visual display, "rudimentary interface" similar to a graphic-enabled cell-phone display, acting like a "standard PDA" with scheduler/address-book/entertainment applications and an operating system) that wirelessly communicates with an "interface client" connected to a display such as a monitor or television. Olgaard discloses switching content from the small device display to the larger display, cursor-position continuity, and a microchip transceiver for wireless communication. Per Unified Patents' petition, Olgaard maps to [27.1] display screen, [27.2] GUI, [27.3] OS, [27.4] processor, [27.5] wireless units, and the TV-associated output controller.
• Moghadam discloses a handheld electronic device communicating with another computing device, and was offered by Unified Patents to fill gaps (per the reply declaration, particularly the GUI/selection and/or content-transfer features). The PTAB hearing transcript identifies Olgaard as the primary reference on Ground 1, with Moghadam as the secondary reference.

Motivation to combine

Unified Patents' stated rationale (as reflected in the Freedman declarations and reply): a PHOSITA seeking to provide pervasive, driverless output of digital content from a mobile device to a television would have been motivated to augment Olgaard's wireless-link/interface-client system with Moghadam's handheld-device features — e.g., the user-interface interaction and/or device-selection techniques — because both references address the same problem (mobile device + companion display/controller), operate in the same field (short-range wireless A/V and mobile computing), and use analogous components (handheld computing device, display, wireless link). Combining them would be the "simple substitution" or "known technique" of taking the GUI/selection capabilities of a handheld device (Moghadam) and applying them to a wireless PDA-like controller (Olgaard) to yield the claimed content-selection step.

Why the Board did not find this sufficient

The Board instituted on this ground (finding a reasonable likelihood of success), but in the Final Written Decision determined that Unified Patents failed to prove claim 27 (and 28) unpatentable. The hearing transcript shows the live disputes centered on elements 27.2 (GUI over the display for interacting with the user), 27.8 (WLAN connection established subsequent to the security/authentication procedure, via an 802.11-compatible unit), and 27.9 (GUI receipt of an indication of selected audio/video content). The record as a whole (including patent owner's expert testimony of Dr. Cooklev and inventor Chang's deposition) did not persuade the Board that Olgaard + Moghadam disclosed the temporal sequencing — an authentication step performed before and separately from the establishment of the 802.11 WLAN connection — or the specific transmission of user credentials (username/password/ID/security key/voice) over the wireless connection. These are structural, claim-specific gaps, not mere motivation failures.

4. Combination 2: Acharya (US 2002/0080091) in view of Griffiths (US 7,136,999)

What each reference discloses

• Acharya discloses wireless communication between a mobile/handheld device and a display or computing device and was the primary reference on Ground 2.
• Griffiths discloses secure wireless networking/authentication features and was offered specifically to supply the security/authentication and WLAN-establishment elements.

Motivation to combine

Unified Patents argued (per the reply declaration, § III.A) that a PHOSITA would have combined Acharya's wireless display/output system with Griffiths' security/authentication techniques because: (i) both are in the field of wireless networking and device-to-device communication; (ii) secure connection establishment is a well-known, standard requirement when a mobile device connects to a WLAN or to an output device on a network; and (iii) the combination would be a routine application of known authentication procedures (WEP/WPA-style security, credential exchange) to a wireless display system, with predictable results — the classic KSR "known element, known purpose, predictable result" rationale. The focus of the dispute was element [27.8] — whether the combined references taught establishing an IEEE 802.11 WLAN connection between the information apparatus and the wireless output controller device subsequent to the authentication procedure.

Why the Board did not find this sufficient

Despite institution, the Final Written Decision again held the ground unproven. The Board was not persuaded that Acharya + Griffiths, fairly read, disclosed the claimed WLAN connection established to the output controller device itself, subsequent to, and based on, the security/authentication procedure, with the authentication occurring over the earlier-established wireless connection (element 27.7). In other words, the references' security teachings were either generic network-level authentication or did not have the required two-phase sequence (connect → authenticate with credentials → then establish 802.11 WLAN to the output controller → then transfer audio/video content selected via the GUI).

5. Additional combinations available from the art cited on the face of the patent

A future challenger (or the same challenger on amended claims) would most plausibly build on the examiner-cited art, which includes several on-point wireless-display and Bluetooth references. The most promising hypothetical combinations:

Combination A: Margulis (US 6,263,503) + Nykanen (US 6,288,589) + Zigmond (US 6,215,483) or Ludtke (US 6,233,611)

• Margulis discloses wirelessly transmitting video/display content from a computer to a television/monitor — directly on point for "transferring digital content over air for playing at a smart television."
• Nykanen discloses Bluetooth-based wireless device communication including service discovery — on point for discovering an output device wirelessly.
• Zigmond (television control interface) and Ludtke (media manager controlling entertainment devices) disclose user-interface selection of content for playback on a TV.
• Motivation: A PHOSITA wanting "driverless" wireless display to a TV circa 2001 would combine Margulis' wireless-video-to-TV pipeline with Nykanen's standard Bluetooth discovery (to find the TV/controller) and Zigmond/Ludtke's TV content-selection UI. All are in the same field (wireless A/V, pervasive computing), and the combination is the straightforward integration of discovery + selection + transport — the exact "known elements, predictable combination" the KSR framework treats as obvious. This is the closest analog to what became AirPlay/Miracast-class functionality.

Combination B: Moon (US 6,211,858) or Rydbeck (US 6,195,564) + Lindblad (US 6,223,059) / Lach (US 6,363,452) + Candelore (US 6,363,149)

• PDA/phone-based remote control of a TV (Moon/Rydbeck) + Bluetooth link-layer pairing and PIN/security exchange (Lindblad/Lach) + conditional-access/security for A/V content (Candelore) maps onto the claimed authenticated wireless connection between a mobile apparatus and a TV/controller.
• Motivation: Bluetooth's standard pairing procedure inherently involves transmitting a PIN/passkey over the wireless link before data transfer — the same security-before-transfer sequence the claims recite — and a PHOSITA would naturally apply standard Bluetooth pairing to a PDA-to-TV remote/display system. The motivation is the industry-standard need for secure pairing before content transfer.

Critical caveat on these additional combinations

I have not located a PTAB or court decision testing Combinations A or B, and they face real hurdles:

• Date/priority issues. Several of these references issued/published in 2001–2002 (e.g., Margulis issued July 2001; Nykanen September 2001; Zigmond April 2001; Ludtke May 2001; Kubler May 2002; Lach March 2002). The '257 patent claims a January 19, 2001 provisional priority date, and the family also traces to a November 1, 2000 application (09/695,518, Ex. 1009 in the IPR). If the challenged claims are entitled to those dates, references published after them are not § 102(a) prior art. The IPR institution implies the priority question was resolved at least preliminarily in the petitioner's favor for claims 27–28 (otherwise Acharya, published June 2002, could not anchor Ground 2), but I could not retrieve the full priority analysis, and it should be verified before relying on any 2001–2002 reference.
• The "subsequent to" and credential-transmission limitations. The PTAB's rejection of the two litigated grounds turned on precisely these limitations — authentication with transmitted credentials over an earlier wireless connection, followed by establishment of an 802.11 WLAN to the output controller. None of the examiner-cited references above is known to me to recite that exact two-phase sequence with credential transmission, which is why the patent survived the only § 103 challenge actually tried to judgment.

6. Overall § 103 assessment

• The strongest § 103 case ever assembled against claims 27–28 was litigated and lost. Unified Patents' two grounds — Olgaard + Moghadam and Acharya + Griffiths — were instituted (satisfying a "reasonable likelihood" threshold), fully briefed, supported by expert declarations (Freedman for the petitioner; Cooklev for the patent owner), and tested at oral hearing, and the Board still found the claims not unproven unpatentable (FWD, Nov. 1, 2023). Any credible § 103 analysis must start from that fact: the record shows these claims withstood the best available combination-based attack.
• The claim features most resistant to obviousness are: (i) the temporal/structural sequence of (a) a first wireless connection, (b) authentication transmitting user credentials over it, and (c) only then establishment of an 802.11 WLAN connection to the output controller; and (ii) GUI-based selection of audio/video content followed by transfer over that WLAN. These are the elements that defeated both grounds.
• For a future challenger (or for substitute claims), the most promising untested combination would be Margulis + Nykanen + Zigmond/Ludtke (wireless video-to-TV + Bluetooth discovery + TV content-selection UI), with Lindblad/Lach added for Bluetooth pairing/security — provided the priority-date analysis permits use of those 2001 references. The motivation-to-combine story is strong (same field, standard discovery/pairing procedures, predictable integration), but the missing explicit disclosure of the claimed authentication-then-WLAN sequence remains the principal obstacle, exactly as it was in IPR2022-00775.
• Objective indicia (secondary considerations) would likely cut against obviousness if developed: the claimed "driverless" wireless display/streaming paradigm (now ubiquitous as AirPlay, Miracast, Chromecast, and smart-TV companion apps) was not successfully commercialized by others in the 2001–2002 timeframe despite the need the specification documents, and the patent has been licensed (Roku settlement) and survived IPR — though licensing/settlement conduct is weak evidence and should not be over-weighted.

Confidence and verification notes

• High confidence: the identity of the two IPR grounds and references (Olgaard US 7,849,198; Moghadam US 5,917,542; Acharya US 2002/0080091; Griffiths US 7,136,999); claim 27's text as quoted in the Institution Decision; the FWD outcome (no claim unpatentable; motion to amend dismissed).
• Not verified: the full text of claim 28 (dependent limitations); the PTAB's detailed rationale in the FWD (only the outcome and hearing-transcript issue-spotting are available to me); the exact priority-date analysis making Acharya available as prior art; and the effective prior-art dates of the examiner-cited 2001–2002 references (Margulis, Nykanen, Zigmond, Ludtke, etc.). A rigorous § 103 analysis for any new combination should confirm each reference's § 102 status against the earliest date the relevant claim limitations are entitled to claim.