US 9877345

US Patent 9877345, titled "Method and system for using a situational network," was issued on January 23, 2018, from an application filed on September 22, 2015. The current assignee is Sitnet LLC, with Resource Consortium Ltd listed as the original assignee. The inventors are Thomas Cona, Patrick T. Igoe, Leonid Kravets, and Edward A. Ehrlacher.

Abstract:
The patent describes a method and system for establishing and managing a "situational network" (SitNet). This network is dynamically created based on the occurrence or expectation of an event or situation, connecting participants (users and external entities like news or weather agencies) who can then exchange information about that event. Participants may have no prior connection to each other. The SitNet's connections can be adjusted as the situation evolves or as participants' relevance to it changes, for instance, based on their location. The system can employ centralized, decentralized (peer-to-peer), or combined architectures. A key component enabling user participation is the Personal Information Aggregator (PIA), which stores, organizes, and controls a user's personal information, facilitating connections and information sharing within the SitNet.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a method for creating and using a situational network. It involves identifying an event (like a storm or accident) and then connecting people and authorities (participants) to a network if they are relevant to that event (e.g., based on their profile, location, or travel plans). Information about the event is then exchanged among these connected participants. The network dynamically manages these connections, adding or removing participants or changing their links as the event's characteristics change or as participants move in relation to the event.

• Independent Claim 12 (System): This claim outlines a system designed to establish a situational network. It includes a processor to identify events and determine participant relevance, and a network interface to set up and manage connections between these relevant participants for information exchange. The system is built to dynamically adjust these connections (adding, removing, or modifying links) based on how the event changes or how participants' locations shift relative to the event.

• Independent Claim 23 (Method for Participant's Device): This claim focuses on the actions of a participant's computing device (like a Personal Information Aggregator). The device determines if other participants are relevant to an event and then establishes a temporary connection with those relevant participants. It transmits event-related information over this connection and automatically disconnects the link when certain predefined conditions for termination are met.

• Independent Claim 24 (Computer-Readable Storage Medium): This claim describes a computer storage medium containing instructions. When a processor executes these instructions, it carries out a method similar to Claim 23: determining a participant's relevance to an event, establishing a temporary connection with other relevant participants, transmitting event-related information, and automatically disconnecting the temporary link based on a termination condition.

Litigation Status (CAFC 2026 Dockets):
US Patent 9877345 is involved in litigation. As of the current date, a US case related to this patent has been filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) with case number 26-1158. This case number indicates it was filed in 2026. The Google Patents record also notes a PTAB case IPR2024-00530, which has a Final Written Decision. Additionally, a US case was filed in the New York Southern District Court (case 1:23-cv-06389). The CAFC is celebrating "America250" and has a public opening on July 3, 2026, where visitors can learn about the court's role. Information about Federal Circuit cases can be found on their website, including case filings, records, and opinions. For cases filed before March 1, 2012, records are with the National Archives, but some documents may be maintained by the Clerk's Office.

As of April 26, 2026, the following litigation is known involving US patent 9877345:

• Case: IPR2024-00530 (PTAB case)

  • Petitioner: Unified Patents PTAB Data
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Case Number: IPR2024-00530
  • Filing Date: Not specified, but the status indicates it has a "Final Written Decision."
  • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision has been issued.

• Case: US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case Number: 26-1158
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Case filed.

• Case: US case filed in New York Southern District Court

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 1:23-cv-06389
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Case filed.

• Case: First worldwide family litigation filed

  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Jurisdiction: Worldwide (as indicated by "First worldwide family litigation")
  • Case Number: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation filed.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9877345, with a status of Final Written Decision. This indicates that a determination has been made regarding the patentability of the challenged claims.

IPR2024-00530 — Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-02-27
• Status: Final Written Decision – A final decision has been issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available in the provided information.
• Institution decision: Not publicly available in the provided information.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not publicly available in the provided information.
• Settlement / termination: Not publicly available in the provided information.
• Appeal: Not publicly available in the provided information.
• Defensive value: Without knowing the claim-level outcomes of the Final Written Decision, the specific defensive value cannot be definitively assessed. If claims asserted against a defendant were invalidated, it would significantly weaken the patent owner's position for those claims. Conversely, if the claims were upheld, it would strengthen the patent owner's position.

Strategic summary

Currently, with only one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2024-00530, reaching a Final Written Decision for US9877345, and the claim-level outcomes not being readily available, a full strategic summary is difficult to formulate. The status of "Final Written Decision" means the PTAB has made a definitive ruling on the challenged claims in this particular IPR.

Without knowing which claims were challenged and the outcome for each (canceled, sustained, or untested), it's impossible to list the precise claims that are now canceled or sustained. Similarly, the estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) cannot be fully assessed without the details of the grounds raised in IPR2024-00530. However, for Meta Platforms, Inc. (the petitioner) and its privies, they would be barred from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in this IPR. For other potential defendants, prior art grounds not addressed in IPR2024-00530 could still be available.

There is no indication of multiple IPRs filed by the same petitioner, nor information on whether the patent owner has aggressively pursued PTAB appeals. The petitioner, Meta Platforms, Inc., is a large technology company, but the provided data does not indicate whether a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents is involved in the chain.

Recommended next steps

To understand the defensive value for a defendant facing assertion of US9877345, it is crucial to review the Final Written Decision of IPR2024-00530. This decision will detail which claims, if any, were invalidated or sustained. The USPTO PTAB Decisions portal should be consulted to obtain the full text of the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00530. Without this information, any defensive strategy would be incomplete.

Inventors

• Thomas Cona (Resource Consortium Ltd)
• Patrick T. Igoe (Resource Consortium Ltd)
• Leonid Kravets (Resource Consortium Ltd)
• Edward A. Ehrlacher (Resource Consortium Ltd)

Original assignee

Resource Consortium Ltd. Based on the patent text, Resource Consortium Ltd appears to be a company focused on intellectual property, specifically related to the "situational network" technology. It's unclear from the patent text whether they shipped a product embodying the claims, their primary line of business, or their current operational status.

Assignment timeline

• 2015-09-22 (executed) / recorded 2015-09-22 — Reel 033620/0858

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: EHRLACHER, EDWARD A.; KRAVETS, LEONID; IGOE, PATRICK; CONA, THOMA
  • Assignee: RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL J. CAULFIELD, RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED, 1500 Broadway, 12th Floor, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES, 10036
  • Context: Internal reorg – inventors assigned their rights to the original assignee.

• 2019-08-19 (executed) / recorded 2019-09-05 — Reel 048025/0074

  • Conveyance: Reassignment
  • Assignor: RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED
  • Assignee: RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED, LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL J. CAULFIELD, RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED, 1500 Broadway, 12th Floor, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES, 10036. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Entity conversion – Limited changed to LLC.

• 2022-11-02 (executed) / recorded 2022-11-14 — Reel 057962/0971

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: RESOURCE CONSORTIUM LIMITED, LLC
  • Assignee: SITNET, LLC
  • Correspondent: MATTHEW R. LAWLESS, LAWLESS & LAWLESS, 17562 MONTEREY, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA, UNITED STATES, 92708
  • Context: Transfer to asserter.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9877345
    2015 : Assigned to Resource Consortium Ltd
    2019 : Reassigned to Resource Consortium Ltd, LLC
    2022 : Assigned to Sitnet LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer from Resource Consortium Limited, LLC to SITNET, LLC (Reel 057962/0971, executed 2022-11-02 / recorded 2022-11-14) is indicative. SITNET, LLC's name suggests a focus on the patented technology for licensing or assertion rather than product development. The Google Patents information identifies "Sitnet LLC" as the current assignee, but does not indicate any products or services offered by this entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. While Sitnet LLC is currently involved in litigation related to this patent as noted in the Google Patents "Family has litigation" section, it is not explicitly listed on common public NPE lists like Acacia Research Corp or Marathon Patent Group at the time of this analysis. However, the litigation status suggests an asserting entity.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Michael J. Caulfield (Resource Consortium Limited, 1500 Broadway, 12th Floor, New York, New York, United States, 10036) appears as the correspondent for both the 2015-09-22 assignment (Reel 033620/0858) and the 2019-08-19 reassignment (Reel 048025/0074).

4. Cascading transfers — not present. The transfers occur over several years (2015, 2019, 2022), not within a short 24-month window.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The current assignee, Sitnet LLC, is involved in litigation according to Google Patents, with PTAB case IPR2024-00530 filed and US cases in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and New York Southern District Court. The transfer to Sitnet LLC was recorded on 2022-11-14 (Reel 057962/0971). The earliest identified litigation, PTAB case IPR2024-00530, was filed in 2024. This gap of over 6 months makes it unclear if the transfer was specifically pre-litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication in the assignment records or Google Patents of a bankruptcy sale.

7. Privateering — unclear. There's no information available in the provided text to confirm or deny privateering.

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

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence. The presence of a shell-entity transfer to Sitnet LLC (Reel 057962/0971, executed 2022-11-02 / recorded 2022-11-14) and the involvement of this entity in multiple litigation cases strongly suggest an NPE. The recurrence of the same correspondent (Michael J. Caulfield) in earlier assignments (Reel 033620/0858 and Reel 048025/0074) also points to a consistent strategy in managing the patent's ownership chain, which is a common characteristic in NPE operations.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9877345, I would typically perform a detailed search within the USPTO Patent Public Search database (PPUBS). Since I cannot directly execute a complex search within the USPTO database and analyze claims in real-time, I will rely on the provided patent text for its cited references to fulfill this request. The patent text itself lists "Prior art keywords" and provides "References Cited" sections, which are the authoritative source for the patent's own acknowledgment of prior art.

However, the provided patent text for US9877345 does not explicitly list a "References Cited" section or provide a detailed breakdown of each patent citation with descriptions and which claims they anticipate. It only lists "Prior art keywords" and a "Prior art date" of 2006-12-05. Without a specific "References Cited" section within the provided text, I cannot extract the full citations, publication/filing dates, brief descriptions, and the claims they potentially anticipate directly from the provided document.

To properly answer your request, I would need access to the full patent document, including its "References Cited" section, which is typically found in the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool.

Therefore, I cannot, with high confidence, provide the most relevant prior art for US patent 9877345, including full citations, publication/filing dates, brief descriptions, and which claims they potentially anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102, based solely on the provided text.

The provided patent text for US9877345 includes "Prior art keywords" (pia, user, situation, participant, sitnet) and a "Prior art date" of 2006-12-05. However, it does not list specific prior art references (e.g., patent numbers, publications, or non-patent literature) that were considered during the prosecution of US9877345 or that are typically found in a "Prior Art section" of an patent analysis.

Therefore, without specific prior art documents to analyze and combine, it is not possible to identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US9877345 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, nor to explain the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had to combine them.

To perform such an obviousness analysis, the following information would be required:

1. The claims of US9877345: A detailed review of the independent and dependent claims would be necessary to understand the metes and bounds of the invention.
2. Specific prior art references: A list of prior art patents, publications, or other disclosures that predate December 5, 2006 (the priority date) and are relevant to the claimed invention. These references would typically be found in the "References Cited" section of a patent or from a comprehensive prior art search.
3. Detailed content of each prior art reference: An understanding of what each prior art reference discloses to determine if it teaches individual elements of the claims.

Once these specific prior art references and their disclosures are available, an obviousness analysis would proceed by:

• Identifying a primary prior art reference that teaches most of the elements of a claim.
• Identifying secondary prior art references that teach the remaining elements.
• Articulating a clear and rational motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these references to arrive at the claimed invention, considering factors like common sense, design needs, market pressures, or known problem-solving techniques.

I'll research this patent across USPTO sources. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific USPTO data and family relationships.

Patent Term, Family, and Expiration Analysis — US 9,877,345 B2

Important caveat up front: My session's search-budget was exhausted before I could retrieve the USPTO PatentCenter "Application Data" page, the patent's front-page PTA notice, or the Google Patents "Related US Applications" table for this patent directly. Everything below is drawn from (a) the authoritative full text supplied in this analysis (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑08‑27), and (b) the general PTA/PTE legal framework. Where a number is derived rather than read off a PTOC record, I say so explicitly. There is no fabrication of docket-level data below.

1. Bibliographic anchors (literal, per the authoritative text)

Note the ~8 year 9 month gap between the asserted 2006‑12‑05 priority date and the 2015‑09‑22 actual filing date. That gap is the single most important fact for term analysis: the 20‑year term is measured from the earliest U.S. non‑provisional application in the §120/§121/§365(c) chain, not from 2015.

2. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) — 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)

What I can state with confidence

• Application 14/861,340 was filed on or after May 29, 2000, so it is subject to the PTA regime of § 154(b) as implemented by 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.702–1.705. A PTA notice is therefore mandatory on the face of the patent.

• The record's "Anticipated expiration" of 2027‑10‑26 is later than the unadjusted 20‑year date. Because the priority date asserted is 2006‑12‑05, the unadjusted term date would be 2026‑12‑05 (2026‑12‑05 falls on a Saturday; under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(A)(i)/§ 21 and the terminal‑day rules the enforceable last day would be the following Monday/Tuesday, but Google's field is a calendar computation).

• The arithmetic difference, 2026‑12‑05 → 2027‑10‑26, is exactly 325 days:

  26 (rest of Dec 2026) + 31 + 28 + 31 + 30 + 31 + 30 + 31 + 31 + 30 + 26 = 325 days

Derived conclusion (moderate confidence)

PTA ≈ 325 days, yielding an adjusted expiration of 2027‑10‑26. This is a derived figure — I am reverse‑solving Google Patents' reported expiration, not quoting a PTOC PTA certificate. Possible sources of error:

1. If the 2006‑12‑05 date is a provisional filing (not a non‑provisional), the § 154(a)(2) base date would be the later non‑provisional filing date, and the PTA figure would be materially larger than 325 days (because the base would be later while the reported expiration is fixed). The record labels 2006‑12‑05 both "Prior art date" and "Priority date," which is consistent with an earliest non‑provisional, but I could not confirm the application number of that 2006 filing.
2. Google's "anticipated expiration" can be affected by terminal disclaimers in the chain. Given the very large number of continuation filings in this family (see §4), one or more obviousness‑type double‑patenting terminal disclaimers are plausible; if present, the enforceable term could be cut back to a reference patent's expiration. The record supplied contains no terminal‑disclaimer entry, so I cannot confirm or exclude this.

To verify with certainty

• USPTO PatentCenter → Application 14/861,340 → Application Data tab → "Patent Term Adjustment" (shows A‑delay, B‑delay, C‑delay, overlap, applicant delay, and total).
• The front page of the printed patent, "Notice" field: "Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by ___ days."
• The Notice of Allowance / Issue Notification PTA determination.

3. Patent Term Extension (PTE) — 35 U.S.C. § 156

None. And none is legally available. A § 156 PTE requires the patent to claim a product (drug, biologic, animal drug, medical device, food additive, or color additive), a method of using such a product for an approved indication, or a method of manufacturing such a product, and requires a qualifying FDA regulatory review period before commercial marketing. US 9,877,345 claims a network/computing method and system (per Class H04W76/50, H04W4/90, G08G1/0967 et al.). There is no FDA regulatory review period and therefore no § 156 extension, no "187‑day" pediatric exclusivity, and no § 156(d) application. No PTE certificate exists for this patent.

Also inapplicable here: no reissue (§ 251) is indicated in the record, and there is no indication of a Hatch‑Waxman interplay issue.

4. Continuation / divisional / family landscape

4.1 Children and later filings of record (interpreted literally)

The record's timeline lists the following "Priority to" events, i.e., later applications claiming the benefit of this family. I reproduce the identifiers exactly as given, including the two "US19/..." series numbers, which are unusual but appear literally in the source:

Two observations:

• The family is still actively being prosecuted. The most recent listed filing is 2025‑12‑08 — roughly four months before the current date (2026‑04‑26) — with a 2026 pre‑grant publication. Any of the 2025 filings that have since issued would carry their own PTA and their own term calculation.
• Claim scope differs across family members. The golden.com aggregation surfaced a claim 1 reciting "creating, by an event node server, an event node in a multi-dimensional personal information network … forming a projection of nodes … using geographic locations," which does not match the claim‑1 characterization in the earlier "Patent summary" section of this analysis (a method of identifying an event, connecting relevant participants, and dynamically adjusting links). That is consistent with a continuation family in which later members claim different aspects (projection/geographic selection vs. dynamic connection management), and it is a point worth reconciling against the actual claim sets if you are mapping asserted claims to products.

4.2 Parents / earlier family members

The record identifies US 13/612,964 (filed 2012‑09‑13) → US 9,143,535 B1, described as "Location based services in a situational network," as a family member, and US 8,542,599 likewise appears in the same family cluster on Google Patents. Application 14/861,340 is accordingly best characterized as a continuation (or continuation‑in‑part) of an earlier 2006‑priority chain, not an original filing.

4.3 Divisional applications

None identified. I found no evidence of a § 121 divisional (i.e., an application filed in response to a USPTO restriction requirement). The relationships visible in the record are priority/benefit relationships consistent with continuations. Note that the record does not label each child as a continuation vs. a CIP vs. a divisional — Google Patents reports "Priority to" relationships generically, so the exact § 120/§ 121 character of each child cannot be confirmed from this source. PatentCenter's "Continuity Data" tab is the correct place to confirm this.

4.4 Foreign family

None of substance. This appears to be a US‑only family (no EP/WO/JP national‑phase counterparts surfaced, consistent with the filing being a straight continuation off an earlier US case). No foreign term‑adjustment or SPC considerations apply.

5. Projected expiration date

Conditions on which this date depends:

1. Maintenance fees. The record shows status "Active." Fees are due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years from the 2018‑01‑23 issue date — i.e., approximately 2021‑07‑23, 2025‑07‑23, and 2029‑07‑23. The first two windows have passed, so the patent is presumptively in force through at least the 11.5‑year window. Non‑payment of the 2029 fee would expire the patent before 2027‑10‑26 becomes reachable — note the 11.5‑year fee (2029) falls after the projected expiration, so in practice only two maintenance fees are relevant to this patent's enforceable life.
2. Any terminal disclaimer in the family limiting term (unconfirmed).
3. Any PTA redetermination — a § 154(b)(3)(D) request for reconsideration must be filed within 2 months of the patent's issue date and, for issuance‑date revisions, within 30 days of issuance. Both windows closed in 2018, so the 325‑day figure is now essentially frozen unless it was the subject of a still‑pending correction.
4. Litigation/PTAB outcome. An unenforceability or invalidity ruling does not change the expiration date, but an IPR final written decision cancelling claims changes which claims survive to that date.

6. Interaction with the IPR and litigation posture (cross‑reference, not repetition)

Per the previously generated sections, IPR2024‑00530 reached a Final Written Decision and CAFC case 26‑1158 is on file, alongside N.Y.S.D. case 1:23‑cv‑06389. For term purposes, two points matter:

• Because expiration is 2027‑10‑26, the remaining enforceable life at the current date (2026‑04‑26) is about 18 months. Any CAFC decision in 26‑1158 will very likely land inside that window, which materially raises the practical stakes of the appeal relative to a patent with a long remaining term.
• Contradiction to flag: the two previously generated sections disagree on the IPR2024‑00530 petitioner. The "Litigation summary" lists the petitioner as "Unified Patents PTAB Data," whereas the "PTAB challenges" section titles the proceeding "Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet, LLC." "Unified Patents PTAB Data" is the attribution string for the data source, not a petitioner — so the "PTAB challenges" naming (Meta Platforms, Inc.) is the more plausible reading, but neither is confirmed by an authoritative PTAB record in this session. This should be resolved from the PTAB docket before relying on estoppel analysis.

7. What would change these answers

Bottom line: US 9,877,345 is an active, PTA‑adjusted patent in a large and still‑growing US‑only continuation family, with no § 156 PTE available or granted and no divisional identified. Projected expiration is 2027‑10‑26 (record), implying roughly 325 days of PTA from a 2006‑12‑05 term base — a figure I derived rather than verified, and one that should be confirmed against the patent's front‑page notice and PatentCenter before being relied on in a litigation or licensing model.