US 9916079

US Patent 9916079, titled "Method and system for enabling the sharing of information between applications on a computing device," was invented by Carsten Michael Dietz. The patent was originally assigned to OpenPeak LLC and is currently assigned to Ve Opening LLC as of May 2, 2025. The filing date for this patent was June 4, 2015, and it was issued on March 13, 2018.

The abstract describes a method and system for enabling information sharing between a first and second application on a computing device. This involves receiving a global search request through the first application, prompting a user for a search term, and then automatically presenting candidate elements associated with the second application based on that search term for user selection. Upon selection of a candidate element, it is linked with the first application, allowing the user to access the selected element from the first application.

As of April 26, 2026, the patent's legal status is "Expired - Fee Related," with an adjusted expiration date of May 20, 2036. The patent family has also been involved in litigation, with multiple US cases filed in the Texas Western District Court in 2025. No specific CAFC 2026 dockets for this patent number were found directly through a general search, but the patent record itself indicates ongoing litigation within its family.

Independent Claim Overview:

Claim 1: This claim describes a method for enabling information sharing between a first and a second application on a computing device. It involves two main sets of steps:

1. Initiating a global search from the first application:

   • The first application receives a request to perform a global search across itself and the second application.
   • The user is prompted to provide a search term.
   • The search term is received.
   • Based on the search term, candidate elements associated with the second application are automatically identified and presented for the user to choose from.
   • The user's selection of at least one of these candidate elements is received.

2. Linking information between the first and second applications:

   • After the candidate element is selected, it is linked with the first application, allowing the user to access it from the first application.
   • A selectable link is generated for the first application; when this link is chosen, it allows access to information related to the second application.
   • The selection of this newly linked candidate element through the first application is received.
   • In response to this selection, information related to the linked candidate element is presented through the first application.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 9916079. Let me search multiple sources.

I found substantial litigation. Let me gather details on additional cases and defendants.

Litigation Involving US Patent 9,916,079

Direct answer: Yes — there is extensive and recent litigation. US 9,916,079 is being asserted by VE Opening LLC (the current owner, per Reel 060196/0054) in a 2025 campaign in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco Division), with several cases later moving toward the Northern District of California via venue-transfer motions. A 2025–2026 wave of filings exists, and Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination against the patent in September 2026. Details below, with sources.

Confirmed cases

Cases referenced on the patent record but not yet mapped to a defendant in my search:

• 7:25-cv-00451 — filed in W.D. Tex. (listed on the Google Patents family-litigation record). Likely filed the same day as the Bloomfire case (10/6/2025).
• 1:25-cv-01632 — W.D. Tex. (listed on the Google Patents family-litigation record). Note: this is a different case number from the Bloomfire intradistrict transfer (1:25-cv-01937).
• Upland Software — Unified Patents states the '079 patent "is being asserted in litigation against Upland Software and others," but I could not tie Upland to a specific docket number before reaching my search limit.

Key outcomes / current status

• Salesforce (7:25-cv-00539): On June 9, 2026, Magistrate Judge Derek Gilliland issued a Report and Recommendation finding that only claim 1 of the '079 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent-ineligible), while claims 4, 5, and 6 should remain in the case. The district court (Judge David Counts) adopted the R&R on July 1, 2026. Salesforce's motion to change venue under § 1404(a) was separately briefed (opposition filed by VE Opening; reply by Salesforce).
• Counsel: All VE Opening cases are being litigated by David R. Bennett of Direction IP Law (per Unified Patents and the docket entries). The patent's earlier transfers were handled by Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, and the 2025 assignment to Ve Opening by Morris, Manning & Martin LLP — consistent with the assignment-history section you generated.
• Venue trend: Both the Salesforce and Dropbox matters show § 1404(a) venue challenges, with Dropbox's case appearing in N.D. Cal. under 5:26-cv-07549. VE Opening filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority citing its Sprinklr case (C.A. 1:25-cv-1736-ADA, W.D. Tex.).

⚠️ Contradiction to flag with the previously generated sections

The earlier-generated "PTAB challenges" section states:

"There is no PTAB activity on file for US Patent 9916079… no AIA trial proceedings… the patent claims remain untested by AIA trial proceedings."

This is now contradicted by current search results. On September 18, 2026, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 9,916,079 (owned by VE Opening LLC, described by Unified as an NPE). Unified is represented by in-house counsel David Seastrunk and Kyla Butler. (Source: Unified Patents insight, "VE Opening cross-application search patent challenged," dated 2026-09-21.)

Note that an ex parte reexamination is a post-grant USPTO proceeding, not an AIA trial — so the earlier statement is only partially reconcilable: there may indeed still be no IPR/PGR/CBM (AIA trial) activity, but the statement that there is "no PTAB activity… and no reexaminations" is inaccurate as of Sept 2026. The prior-art and § 103 analysis in the earlier sections should now be read against this live reexamination.

⚠️ Identifier caution (do NOT auto-correct)

Searching "9916079" surfaces an unrelated " '991 Patent" in several results — e.g., Ozmo Licensing LLC v. HP Inc., Acer, and Dell (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00383, 6:21-cv-01225, 6:22-cv-00642). Those pertain to a different patent concerning WPAN/WLAN networks and use a shorthand "'991" that is not US 9,916,079. They are not litigation involving the patent at issue. Likewise, Freedom Innovations, LLC v. Blatchford Products Ltd. (IPR2015-00640) concerns US 8,740,991 ("'991"). These should be excluded.

Sources

• Unified Patents — "VE Opening cross-application search patent challenged" (2026-09-21): https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/9/21/ve-opening-cross-application-search-patent-challenged
• CourtListener docket — VE Opening LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., 7:25-cv-00539: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71935545/ve-opening-llc-v-salesforce-inc/
• CourtListener — Exhibit A, U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079 (Salesforce complaint): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71935545/1/1/ve-opening-llc-v-salesforce-inc/
• Justia Dockets — VE Opening LLC v. Sprinklr, Inc., 7:2025cv00362: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/7:2025cv00362/1172860853
• Justia Dockets — VE Opening LLC v. Bloomfire, Inc., 7:2025cv00450: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/7:2025cv00450/1172867695
• PACER Monitor — VE Opening LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., 7:25-cv-00539: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61307230/VE_Opening_LLC_v_Salesforce,_Inc
• PACER Monitor — VE Opening LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. (5:26-cv-07549, N.D. Cal.): https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/65834834/VE_Opening_LLC_v_Dropbox,_Inc
• Ex Parte complaint analyses — 7:25-cv-00361 (Moveworks) and 7:25-cv-00539 (Salesforce)
• FiduciaryTech — "Salesforce Should Face Some VE Opening Patent Claims, Judge Says" (June 11, 2026; re June 9 R&R)
• Google Patents — US9916079B2 "Family has litigation" record (W.D. Tex. case numbers listed)

Confidence: High for cases 1–5 and the reexamination. Moderate for the untitled 7:25-cv-00451 and 1:25-cv-01632 mapping (case numbers are verified on the patent record, but I could not confirm the defendant/product before reaching the search limit). I found no CAFC appeal involving 9,916,079.

Proceedings overview

There is no PTAB activity on file for US Patent 9916079. The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and web search did not surface any additional older or recently-filed proceedings. This suggests that the patent claims remain untested by AIA trial proceedings, which offers a defendant a wide range of available prior-art grounds if facing assertion of this patent today.

Strategic summary

All claims of US9916079 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings. There are no canceled, sustained, or otherwise adjudicated claims in the PTAB context. Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) for any potential petitioner, meaning all prior-art grounds remain available for future challenges. The absence of PTAB activity could signal that the patent has not been extensively asserted or that previous assertions did not provoke IPR filings.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US9916079, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would have all potential prior art grounds available to them for an AIA trial challenge. If considering a PTAB petition, thorough prior art searching would be a critical first step.

Inventors

The sole named inventor on US Patent 9916079 is Carsten Michael Dietz. His employer at the time of filing (June 4, 2015) was OpenPeak LLC, which was the original assignee.

A subsequent assignment record (Reel 047675/0378) indicates an assignment of interest from "NI, HAO" to OpenPeak LLC, executed on 2017-04-25. However, Ni, Hao is not listed as an inventor on US9916079. This could indicate an assignment of interest relating to a family member patent or a general employee intellectual property assignment, rather than an inventorship claim for this specific patent.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent as the original assignee is OpenPeak LLC.

OpenPeak LLC (originally OpenPeak Inc., then converting/transferring to OpenPeak LLC) was a technology company founded in 2002. Its primary line of business involved developing mobile device management platforms, multimedia touch-screen devices, and mobile cyber-security software platforms. The company shipped products embodying the claims, such as the "OpenFrame" (a home phone and information center), the "OpenTablet 7" (a touch-screen device), and "OpenPeak Spectrum" (a SaaS personal information manager software solution that facilitated secure inter-app communication for emails, contacts, calendars, and notes).

As of September 27, 2016, OpenPeak Inc. filed for "Bankruptcy: Liquidation" in the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court. PitchBook lists OpenPeak as "Out of Business".

Assignment timeline

The following assignments for US9916079 are recorded with the USPTO:

• 2015-06-16 (executed) / recorded 2015-07-28 — Reel 035844/0952

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: DIETZ, CARSTEN MICHAEL
  • Assignee: OPENPEAK INC.
  • Correspondent: C/O MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP, ONE SOUTH WACKER DRIVE, SUITE 2700, CHICAGO, IL 60606. This firm recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Inventor assigned patent rights to the employing entity.

• 2017-04-24 (executed) / recorded 2017-06-20 — Reel 042752/0945

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: OPENPEAK, INC.
  • Assignee: OPENPEAK LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP, 790 N. WATER STREET, SUITE 2500, MILWAUKEE, WI 53202. This firm recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of assets from OpenPeak Inc. to OpenPeak LLC, likely related to OpenPeak Inc.'s bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings initiated in September 2016.

• 2017-04-25 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-07 — Reel 047675/0378

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: NI, HAO
  • Assignee: OPENPEAK LLC
  • Correspondent: C/O MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP, 790 N. WATER STREET, SUITE 2500, MILWAUKEE, WI 53202. This firm recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Assignment of intellectual property rights, possibly from an employee or inventor of a related patent, to OpenPeak LLC.

• 2025-05-02 (executed) / recorded 2025-05-19 — Reel 060196/0054

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: OPENPEAK LLC
  • Assignee: VE OPENING LLC
  • Correspondent: MORRIS, MANNING & MARTIN, LLP, 1600 ATLANTA FINANCIAL CENTER, 3343 PEACHTREE ROAD, N.E., ATLANTA, GA 30326.
  • Context: Transfer from a defunct operating company (OpenPeak LLC) to a newly formed entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9916079
    2015 : Filed by OpenPeak LLC
         : Inventor Dietz assigns to OpenPeak Inc
    2016 : OpenPeak Inc bankruptcy filing
    2017 : OpenPeak Inc assigns to OpenPeak LLC
         : Inventor Ni assigns to OpenPeak LLC
    2018 : Patent issued
    2025 : OpenPeak LLC assigns to VE OPENING LLC
         : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was transferred from OpenPeak LLC (an operating company that went out of business) to VE OPENING LLC on 2025-05-02 (Reel 060196/0054). A search for "VE OPENING LLC products" or "VE OPENING LLC business" yielded no information about operating products or services, suggesting it is a licensing-only entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. None of the assignees (OpenPeak Inc., OpenPeak LLC, VE OPENING LLC) are identified as known NPEs in public lists such as RPX or Unified Patents, based on the current search.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. The law firm Michael Best & Friedrich LLP served as the correspondent for three assignments in the chain: 2015-07-28 (Reel 035844/0952), 2017-06-20 (Reel 042752/0945), and 2018-12-07 (Reel 047675/0378).
4. Cascading transfers — Unclear. While there are multiple transfers, they are spread across several years and relate to corporate restructuring and inventor assignments rather than rapid, sequential transfers between shell entities in a short period.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The patent family has litigation filed in the Texas Western District Court in 2025. The assignment to VE OPENING LLC was executed on 2025-05-02 and recorded on 2025-05-19 (Reel 060196/0054). This timing, immediately prior to or concurrent with the litigation filings in 2025, is a strong signal for a pre-litigation transfer to enable assertion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Present. OpenPeak Inc., an early entity in the chain and related to the original assignee, filed for "Bankruptcy: Liquidation" on 2016-09-27. The transfer from OpenPeak Inc. to OpenPeak LLC (executed 2017-04-24, Reel 042752/0945) occurred after this bankruptcy filing, suggesting a transfer of assets from the defunct operating company.
7. Privateering — Unclear. No information was found to suggest that OpenPeak LLC transferred the patent to VE OPENING LLC to assert against competitors on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on multiple strong signals: the original operating company (OpenPeak LLC) is out of business following a bankruptcy, the patent was subsequently transferred to a shell entity (VE OPENING LLC) with no discernible products or operating business (Reel 060196/0054), and this transfer occurred just before or concurrent with the filing of infringement suits in 2025. The recurrence of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP as correspondent on earlier transfers further supports the pattern of managed patent assets.

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

I'll verify the citation records and dates for US 9916079 before analyzing each reference.

Let me verify the remaining references, particularly the security-related and image-search citations.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 9916079 B2

Patent under analysis: US 9,916,079 B2, "Method and system for enabling the sharing of information between applications on a computing device" (Dietz; appl. 14/730,517; filed 2015‑06‑04; priority to provisional 62/008,280 filed 2014‑06‑05; issued 2018‑03‑13).

Effective filing date / law: The application was filed after 2013‑03‑16, so AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 governs. The earliest effective filing date is 2014‑06‑05 (provisional 62/008,280); the non‑provisional was filed 2015‑06‑04. This date is the dividing line for every reference below.

Sources used: The citation lists are taken from the authoritative full text of US 9,916,079 (USPTO‑derived bibliographic data as reproduced on Google Patents). I independently verified the substance and dates of the Taptu, Tseng, Barnes & Noble, Microsoft "flick," and deCharms references via patent‑database lookups. Verification of US 2014/0250120 A1 / US 9,411,830 B2 and the Dell documents was limited to their bibliographic data as recorded in the patent; I flag that where relevant rather than inferring content.

1. Critical threshold finding: six of the twelve examiner citations are NOT § 102 prior art

The patent's "Patent Citations" table lists 12 documents, but only 6 are distinct references. Two of them are the publication/grant pair of a single Microsoft family (US 2014/0250120 A1 → US 9,411,830 B2), and six of the twelve (three families) are Dell documents whose earliest effective filing date is 2015‑04‑21 — after US 9,916,079's 2014‑06‑05 effective filing date.

Consequence: These six documents cannot support any § 102 anticipation or § 103 obviousness rejection as things stand. Exception worth noting: if US 9,916,079 were ever shown not to be entitled to the 62/008,280 provisional (e.g., the provisional lacks § 112 support for a claimed feature), its effective filing date would drop to 2015‑06‑04 — and Dell's 2015‑04‑21 effective filing date would then fall before it, making all three Dell families available as § 102(a)(2) art. This is a narrow but real lever for a challenger, and it is the only respect in which the Dell citations have value.

Applied to the question asked: no Dell reference anticipates any claim of US 9,916,079.

2. The six distinct cited references — bibliography and substance

Statutory basis per reference (for § 102):

3. Reference‑by‑reference § 102 analysis

A threshold point governs everything below: a reference anticipates a claim only if it discloses every limitation of that claim, arranged as recited (and for a dependent claim, every limitation of the claim it depends from). Because claim 1 requires the linking half of the method — (i) linking the selected candidate element with the first application, (ii) generating for the first application a selectable link that when selected enables access to information related to the second application, (iii) receiving selection of that link through the first application, and (iv) presenting the linked element's information through the first application — no cited reference anticipates any claim of US 9,916,079, standing alone. Each reference below is therefore assessed for (a) which claim elements it discloses, and (b) which claims it comes closest to, for § 103 purposes.

3.1 US 2009/0083232 A1 — Taptu Ltd.

• Discloses: prompting for/receiving a search term; automatically determining and presenting candidate results; presenting suggested items for selection by the user; visual association of items so the user can select quickly; grouping/visual association of items.
• Does not disclose: a "global search request" received through a first application covering a second application; linking a selected element into the first application; generating a selectable link in the first application; presenting the second application's information through the first application. Its "results" are web/mobile search hits and suggested further queries, not elements of other on‑device applications.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None. Relevant to claim 1 (search term prompt/receipt; automatic determination and presentation of candidates) and claim 3 (grouping of presented items) as § 103 art.

3.2 US 2010/0100839 A1 (Tseng) / US 9,015,616 B2

• Discloses: initiating search functionality from within an active application; automatically presenting a search entry area (prompt for a search term); receiving the query; providing the search results to the active application and changing the active application's display to reflect them; optionally opening the search area separately from the active application; search‑set type selected by the active application's type (map, local, web, book, blog, product).
• Does not disclose: selection of a candidate element associated with a second application; linking that element to the first application; generating a selectable link into the first application that, on later selection, accesses the second application's information.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None. This is the single best cited reference for the "first half" of claim 1 — specifically "receiving a global search request through the first application," "prompting for a search term," "receiving the search term," and the notion that results are returned into the originating application. Note for claims 4–5 (active/non‑active states): Tseng's active‑application orientation is probative background but says nothing about a non‑active second application running in the background.
• Note on claim 9 (swipe gesture): Tseng's trigger is a keyboard unveiling/device rotation, not a swiping pattern — it does not disclose claim 9.

3.3 & 3.4 US 2014/0250120 A1 and US 9,411,830 B2 — Microsoft (same family)

• Status: these are duplicate entries for one disclosure (publication and grant). They should be treated as a single reference. Both are § 102(a)(2) art only (effectively filed 2011‑11‑24).
• Discloses (per its title/abstract-level disclosure): interactive, multi‑modal (image + textual) search with interactive presentation of results.
• Does not disclose: cross‑application element linking; generation of a selectable link in an originating application; presenting another application's information through the first application.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None. At most § 103 art on the "interactive presentation of candidate elements for selection" concept (claim 1, presenting step). I did not independently verify its internal disclosure in this pass and do not assert more than the above.

3.5 US 9,014,661 B2 (deCharms) — the outlier

• Discloses: a mobile safety/emergency‑response system — identifying a plurality of candidate responders, selecting a particular candidate responder based on factors (location, ratings, skills, licensure), two‑way video chat, remote video storage.
• Relevance to US 9,916,079: essentially none on the merits. There is no search of application content, no candidate element of a second application, no link generation, no information field. Its presence in the citation list is most plausibly explained by keyword‑level overlap on "candidate," "selection," and "application"/"computing device" during examination, not by technical correspondence.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None.

3.6 US 2014/0380214 A1 (Barnes & Noble / Nook) — the closest cited reference on the linking concept

• Discloses: invoking a discovery mode from within multiple diverse applications (online shop, picture viewer, file manager); depositing content/a query to trigger a search for related content; selecting a discovered item; grouping discovered content into groups by similar characteristics, each group with a header (claim 3‑style categorization); a search affordance pervasive in the global UI.
• Does not disclose: linking the selected element into the originating application or one of its information fields; generating a persistent selectable link in the first application that, when later selected, accesses the second application's information; the "second application" being a separate on‑device application whose element is surfaced through the first.
• Claims potentially anticipated: None. It is the most probative cited reference for claim 3 ("presenting at least one corresponding candidate element in one or more categories based on association with the second application and the plurality of other applications") — though even here B&N's categories are by content characteristic, not by originating application, which is a meaningful gap. It is also useful § 103 art for the "selection of a candidate element" and cross‑application invocation aspects of claim 1.

4. Summary table — anticipation assessment

Bottom line for § 102: US 9,916,079 is not anticipated by any reference cited against it. All ten claims survive a § 102 challenge on this record. The patent's vulnerability, if any, lies in § 103 (as the earlier-generated obviousness section explored), not in anticipation.

5. More dangerous prior art: the family‑cited references

The "Family Cites Families" table for US 9,916,079 contains references the examiner did not cite against this patent, at least two of which are materially closer to the claims than anything in the examiner's list. Because they appear on the family citation record, they are properly part of this analysis as additional candidates:

6. Verification status and flagged contradictions

1. Contradiction with the previously generated "Obviousness" section. That section relies on US 9,195,388 B2 (Apple Inc.), "Specifying applications to share in a shared access mode," attributing content to it (sharing information between applications). US 9,195,388 B2 does not appear in either the "Patent Citations" or "Family Cites Families" tables for US 9,916,079 as reproduced in the authoritative patent text, and I could not verify its bibliographic details in this pass. It should be treated as unverified and, at minimum, re‑checked before being relied on; it may be an erroneous entry in that earlier section. This is flagged rather than repeated here.
2. Duplicate entries in the citation table. US 2014/0250120 A1 and US 9,411,830 B2 are one Microsoft disclosure (publication + grant). Similarly, US 2016/0313866 A1↔US 9,690,400 B2, US 2016/0313816 A1↔US 9,690,... (Dell pairings), and US 2016/0313890 A1↔US 9,804,733 B2 are three publication/grant pairs. The "12 citations" therefore represent 6 distinct references.
3. Unverified in this pass: the internal disclosure of US 2014/0250120 A1 / US 9,411,830 B2, and the Dell documents beyond their bibliographic data. I have not asserted content beyond titles/abstracts for those, and no conclusion here depends on unverified content.
4. Dates were cross‑checked against patent‑database records for Taptu (pub. 2009‑03‑26), Tseng (pub. 2010‑04‑22; grant US 9,015,616 B2 on 2015‑04‑21), Barnes & Noble (pub. 2014‑12‑25; grant US 9,244,603 B2 on 2016‑01‑26), Microsoft "flick" (pub. 2009‑03‑05; continuation US 10,191,940 B2), and deCharms (priority 2013‑05‑04; grant US 9,014,661 B2 on 2015‑04‑21). All match the patent record.

7. Recommended next steps

1. Obtain and chart US 9,811,239 B2 (Cellco) element‑by‑element against claim 1. Its 2014‑05‑05 effective filing date places it squarely in § 102(a)(2) and it is the only identified reference whose stated subject matter is searching across applications. It is the most likely single‑reference anticipation candidate in the entire record — and it was not cited against US 9,916,079.
2. Chart US 2009/0058820 A1 (+ its continuation family) against claims 1 and 9, focusing on the "embeddable persistent graphical object" populated with search results as the link‑generation element, and on the flick gesture as the claim 9 swipe trigger.
3. Confirm the 62/008,280 provisional's § 112 support for the "generating for the first application a selectable link" limitation. If that limitation is not supported by the provisional, the effective filing date shifts to 2015‑06‑04, which (i) converts the Barnes & Noble 2014‑12‑25 publication and the Microsoft 2014‑09‑04 publication into § 102(a)(1) art, and (ii) makes all three Dell families § 102(a)(2) art. This single issue could transform the prior‑art landscape for both § 102 and § 103.
4. For claims 5–6 (secure applications / secure PIM), pursue U.S. Pat. No. 8,695,060 (incorporated by reference in the specification) together with the Citrix family documents that cite the 9916079 family (US 9,280,377 B2; US 9,183,380 B2; WO 2014/062804 A1; US 9,971,585 B2; US 10,284,627 B2) for the secure‑workspace/application‑wrapping concepts.
5. Do not use US 9,014,661 B2 (deCharms) or the Dell documents in any § 102 or § 103 challenge on the current record; both are non‑substantive or date‑barred.

The obviousness of US Patent 9916079 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be analyzed by examining combinations of the cited prior art references and considering the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have had to combine them. The core of US9916079 is the seamless sharing of information between applications on a computing device through a global search and linking mechanism.

To establish obviousness, it must be shown that a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to combine existing prior art elements to arrive at the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success. This includes identifying a motivation to combine the references.

Claim 1 outlines a method for enabling information sharing involving a global search initiated from a first application, prompting for a search term, presenting candidate elements from a second application, receiving a selection, and then linking the selected element to the first application with a selectable link. Subsequent selection of this link in the first application then presents the related information from the second application.

Here are potential combinations of prior art that could render Claim 1, and by extension other dependent claims, obvious:

Combination 1: US20100100839A1 (Tseng) + US20090083232A1 (Taptu Ltd.) + US20140380214A1 (Barnesandnoble.Com Llc)

• US20100100839A1 (Tseng): This patent application, titled "Search Initiation," describes methods for initiating searches, including from within an application. It would establish the concept of initiating a search from a "first application" as described in Claim 1.
• US20090083232A1 (Taptu Ltd.): Titled "Search results with search query suggestions," this reference focuses on providing search results along with suggestions. This would address the steps of "prompting for a search term from a user," "receiving the search term," and "automatically determining one or more corresponding candidate elements." A PHOSITA would understand that a global search would naturally include results from various applications.
• US20140380214A1 (Barnesandnoble.Com Llc): This patent application, "Drag and drop techniques for discovering related content," describes methods for associating content, including through user interaction like drag and drop. A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine this with the search functionality of Tseng and Taptu to create a link between discovered information (candidate elements) and the initiating application. This would cover "receiving the selection of at least one of the candidate elements" and "linking the selected candidate element with the first application such that a user may access the selected candidate element from the first application." Furthermore, the generation of a selectable link and subsequent access to information (as described in Tseng for initiating searches based on displayed content) would be an obvious extension of linking content.

Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine these references to enhance user experience and efficiency in managing information across multiple applications. The desire to provide a more integrated and streamlined workflow, where information discovered through a global search can be easily referenced and accessed within the context of an ongoing task in a primary application, would drive this combination. For example, if a user is drafting an email (first application) and needs to reference a calendar event (second application), a global search that allows them to find the event and link it directly into the email would be a clear improvement.

Combination 2: US20090058820A1 (Microsoft Corporation) + US9195388B2 (Apple Inc.)

• US20090058820A1 (Microsoft Corporation): This reference, "Flick-based in situ search from ink, text, or an empty selection region," describes initiating searches from within an application context, potentially via gestures. This aligns with "receiving a global search request through the first application."
• US9195388B2 (Apple Inc.): Titled "Specifying applications to share in a shared access mode," this patent discusses methods for sharing information between applications. While not explicitly about global search, it demonstrates the concept of enabling information flow and access between different applications, which is the ultimate goal of the linking steps in Claim 1. A PHOSITA would understand that sharing data often involves providing a reference or link to the data in the receiving application.

Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine these to improve the utility of in-situ searches by allowing the results to be directly integrated and shared within the application from which the search was initiated. If a search initiated from an application yields relevant information from another application, the next logical step is to allow that information to be easily incorporated or accessed without switching contexts, thereby providing an "easy way for information from multiple applications on the computing device to be shared."

Combination 3: US9811239B2 (Cellco Partnership) + US20140250120A1 (Microsoft Corporation)

• US9811239B2 (Cellco Partnership): This patent, "Systems and methods for efficiently searching applications," covers efficient searching across applications, which directly addresses the "global search covering the first application and the second application" and "automatically determining one or more corresponding candidate elements associated with the second application" aspects.
• US20140250120A1 (Microsoft Corporation): "Interactive Multi-Modal Image Search" describes presenting search results in an interactive manner. A PHOSITA would understand that such interactive presentation could include selectable elements.

Motivation to Combine: The motivation here would be to make the results of an efficient cross-application search (Cellco Partnership) more actionable and integrated within the user's current workflow (Microsoft Corporation). If a search across applications yields a relevant document or piece of data, providing an interactive way to select it and then automatically generate a link for easy future access within the originating application would be a natural progression for improving user efficiency.

Considering Dependent Claims:

• Claims 2 and 3 (Presenting candidate elements from other applications and in categories): The concept of presenting search results from multiple applications and organizing them into categories (e.g., "files," "emails," "contacts") is a common feature in many search interfaces (e.g., operating system search functions, personal information managers) and would be obvious to a PHOSITA. Taptu (US20090083232A1) already discusses search query suggestions, and extending this to categorized results from multiple applications is a routine design choice for improving search usability.
• Claims 4-6 (Active/non-active applications, PIM, secure applications): The distinction between active and non-active applications and their management within a Personal Information Manager (PIM) application, especially in a secure environment, is addressed by existing technologies prior to US9916079. The patent itself references U.S. Pat. No. 8,695,060 (issued Apr. 8, 2014), which discusses secure applications and their management. A PHOSITA would readily understand how to apply search and linking functionalities within such an environment, allowing a first active application to interact with a second non-active (background) application, particularly if both are part of a secure PIM.
• Claims 7 and 8 (Information fields and integrating links): The idea of a global search request originating from an "information field" (e.g., a "notes" field in a calendar application) and the resulting link being placed back into that field is a straightforward application of context-aware search and linking. Many applications prior to US9916079 supported embedding links or references within their content fields. Integrating a selectable link into the first application, particularly in an information field, is a direct implementation of the linking concept once a relevant element is identified.
• Claim 9 (Swiping gesture): Initiating a global search via a "swiping in a first predetermined direction or first predetermined swiping pattern on a touch screen" was a common input method for invoking system-wide functions or searches on touch-enabled devices prior to 2014 (priority date of US9916079). Microsoft's "Flick-based in situ search" (US20090058820A1) already points to gesture-based search initiation.
• Claim 10 (Closing and re-launching the first application): The steps of closing and re-launching an application to reflect changes or make a newly generated link functional might be considered a system design choice or even a workaround, rather than a novel inventive step. In many software environments, resources are reloaded or applications are restarted to ensure data consistency or to apply new configurations. While the patent states that in some embodiments these steps may be required, a PHOSITA would understand that ideally, a link would be functional without such a restart, and if a restart were needed, it would be a standard implementation detail.

In summary, the individual elements of US Patent 9916079, namely global search, prompting for search terms, presenting candidate results from multiple applications, selecting elements, and generating links to access those elements, were present in the prior art. A PHOSITA, motivated by the desire to improve user efficiency and information integration across applications, would have found it obvious to combine these existing functionalities to achieve the claimed method.