US RE42828

I'll search for authoritative information on RE42828, including litigation/docket records.

Let me check the CAFC docket and the claim text more specifically.

Let me try to retrieve the actual claim set and check for any Federal Circuit appeal.

US RE42828 — Verification Summary

Important scope note up front: I could not query PACER, the CAFC's own docket system, or USPTO Patent Center directly. My findings below come from public web sources (Google Patents' full-text record, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, Dockets.Justia, and USPTO/PTAB-hosted documents). Where I found nothing authoritative, I say so rather than infer.

---

1. Identification

Related reissue applications of the '304 patent named in the specification, all filed Aug. 27–28, 2008: Ser. Nos. 12/199,647; 12/199,711 (issued as RE41,416); 12/200,014 (RE41,487); 12/200,148 (RE41,532); 12/200,305 (RE41,689); 12/200,645 (RE41,882).

Caveat on dates: 2008-08-27 is the reissue filing date, not the original application's. The reissue takes the original's priority; the currently listed expiration of 2024-04-30 reflects the original term plus adjustments. Google Patents explicitly labels the legal status as an assumption, not a legal conclusion. If your question depends on term or expiry, verify against the USPTO Patent Center "Patent Term Adjustment" record rather than my table.

---

2. Litigation / docket findings

• Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists RE42828 as asserted in Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation, 2:23-cv-00616 (E.D. Tex.). URL: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/re42828
• A separate 2026 E.D. Tex. docket exists — Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al, 2:2026cv00229, filed March 20, 2026, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap (docket retrieved April 16, 2026 per Dockets.Justia). I could not confirm from the available listing that RE42828 is among the patents asserted in that case, so do not treat it as a confirmed RE42828 matter.
• No CAFC 2026 docket or Federal Circuit appeal involving RE42828 was surfaced by my searches. Flexiworld Federal Circuit activity I could find relates to other patents (e.g., the '903 patent family, IPR2021-00112 / related briefing). I cannot rule out a pending appeal that simply isn't indexed in general web results — a PACER/CAFC docket query would be needed to be certain. Treat "no CAFC 2026 appeal found" as a negative search result, not a verified absence.

---

3. Abstract (as published)

The record carries a two-paragraph abstract. First paragraph concerns anonymous voice communication:

Anonymous voice communication between a first station and a second station is facilitated by providing an interface that allows input of a transaction specification from at least one of the first and second stations. A reference code associated with the transaction is generated, there being a defined relationship between the reference code and the address of the second station for voice communication. The reference code is supplied to the first station, and a voice communication request and the reference code are received from the first station. The reference code is used to recover said address and a channel for voice communication is opened between said first and second stations. Voice communication can thereby be established between the first and second stations without providing the address of the second station to the first station.

Second paragraph (the reissue-added, broader framing):

A controlling apparatus providing communication service between two parties over the Internet, without revealing personal or security information between the two parties. The apparatus may receive information related to a second party as well as security information from the second party. The apparatus may provide or publish over the Internet part of the information related to the second party that does not include the security information. The apparatus may subsequently receive a communication request from a first party identifying the second party. The apparatus may verify the identity of the first party, and may provide the first party a reference code relating to the second party's contact information. The reference code may include one or more of an image, graphics, symbols and or a video. The first party may employ the reference code for establishing communication with the second party using a device that is directly connected to the Internet.

---

4. Independent claims — plain-language overview

Confidence warning: I retrieved the full specification and abstract, plus verbatim text of reissue claim 1 and portions of claim 60 and its dependents, but I did not retrieve a complete, verified claim listing for RE42828. The overview below is built from the claim language I could verify plus the "Summary of the Invention" section. Claim numbering and the count of independents should be re-verified on the face of the reissue patent.

Independent claim 1 — "method of facilitating anonymous communication" (reissue wording, verified):

• Both stations must be able to send/receive packet data and be connected directly to a packet data network.
• One of the two stations supplies a transaction specification.
• A reference code is generated in response to that transaction specification, with a defined relationship between the code and the second station's address.
• The code goes to the first station; the first station then sends a communication request plus the code.
• The system uses the code to recover the address and opens a communication channel.
• Net effect: the two stations communicate without the first station ever receiving the second station's address.

Notably, the reissue claim 1 drops the word "voice" that appeared in the original's first aspect ("method of facilitating anonymous voice communication") — the claim is drawn to generic "communication." That broadening is characteristic of this reissue family.

Independent claim 55 — "first station" (apparatus/station claim, partially verified):
A first station for communicating with a second station over a packet data network, where the station has an Internet-enabled device with an interface (e.g., a touch-sensitive display, per dependent claim 56), and is configured so the address of the second party is never revealed. Dependent claims 57–59 add a wireless component and device types (screen phone, smart phone, super phone, wireless PDA, Internet-enabled cellular phone, wireless Internet appliance, wireless laptop, wireless PC), supplying the first party's identity over the packet data network, and voice-over-IP as the channel.

Independent claim 60 — "apparatus" with plural second stations (mean-plus-function claim, verified in part):
An apparatus (e.g., a node on the Internet, per claim 61) comprising means for:

• receiving a transaction specification from each of a plurality of second stations, defining a transaction involving a product, service, and/or information;
• receiving a connection instruction from each second station, including an address and/or security information;
• posting over the Internet at least part of the second parties' transaction information (i.e., publish the non-secret part; withhold the security information);
• verifying the identity of the first party;
• receiving a transaction specification from the first party for communication with a selected second party;
• providing a reference code to the first station, with a defined relationship between the code and the selected party's connection instruction;
• receiving and processing a communication request from the first station using the reference code; and
• opening a communication channel without requiring the second party's address and/or security information to be given to the first party, the channel including the packet data network connected directly to at least one of the stations.

Dependents 62–65 add: the reference code may be an image, graphics, and/or video; charging a fee to either party; the channel may be chat, messaging, voice, video conferencing, Web publishing, and/or email; and the transaction specification may include time/time-availability parameters.

Original-patent background: The specification's "Summary of the Invention" recites three aspects, which map to the original claim set — (i) a method of facilitating anonymous voice communication; (ii) a method of establishing anonymous voice communication via a controller (controller generates code, station dials in, controller recovers address and opens the channel); and (iii) an apparatus with means for negotiation, code generation, request/reference-code receipt, address recovery, and channel opening. Whether each of these survives as a separate independent claim in the reissue as issued, and under what claim numbers, is something I could not verify.

---

5. Substantive takeaway

RE42828's claimed contribution is a transaction-specific reference code that decouples a party's published identity from that party's actual communication address, so an anonymous voice (or other) channel can be brokered without the caller ever learning the callee's number or address. The specification stresses this over the prior art's per-user codes, arguing a user code "is not sufficient to identify and describe different transactions having different transaction specifications and connection criteria." The reissue claims also add a publish-but-withhold structure: the platform publishes a second party's descriptive information while keeping its security/contact information back, then hands the requesting first party a reference code only after identity verification.

If you need certainty on (a) the complete list and numbering of independent claims in the reissued patent, (b) whether RE42828 is asserted in the 2026 TCL action, or (c) whether any 2026 CAFC appeal names it, those three items specifically require a direct Patent Center and PACER/CAFC docket query.

I'll research litigation involving US patent RE42828. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case and check other litigation databases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent RE42828

Summary finding

Based on the litigation databases I could query (Stanford NPE Litigation Database, RPX Empower/RPX Insight, PACER Monitor dockets, CourtListener/RECAP, and PTAB records), RE42828 appears in exactly one identified district-court case: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation. That patent is owned by Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. (inventors Christina Ying Liu and William Ho Chang), which is a well-known patent assertion entity that ran multiple infringement campaigns in the 2020s — but nearly all of those cases asserted other Flexiworld patents (the wireless-printing families such as the '811, '871, '233, '596, '903, '516, '062 patents, etc.), not RE42828.

---

Case table

The court's dismissal order (Dkt. No. 42) reads, verbatim: "the Parties stipulate as to the dismissal of 'all pending claims and counterclaims' in the above-captioned case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) … all claims and counterclaims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE." (PACER Docket, Case 2:23-cv-00616, E.D. Tex.)

---

Important caveat on the Sony case and RE42828

I want to flag a documented discrepancy rather than paper over it:

• The Stanford NPE Litigation Database's RE42828 page identifies the Sony case as involving RE42828.
• However, the First Amended Complaint filed June 6, 2024 in that case (per the PACER Monitor docket and RPX litigation-document excerpts) attached exhibits for these seven patents: US 9,836,259; US 10,168,596; US 11,029,903; US 11,096,056; US 9,798,516; US 9,042,811; and US 10,768,871 — none of which is RE42828. A third-party litigation summary (PatSnap) likewise lists only those seven patents as "at issue."

The most likely explanations are (a) RE42828 was asserted in the original complaint but dropped by amendment, or (b) the NPE database's patent-to-case mapping is imprecise for this docket. I could not retrieve the original complaint's patent list within my search budget, so I cannot state with high confidence that RE42828 appears on the face of a pleading in the Sony case. Treat the NPE-database listing as the source of the association, and verify against the original complaint (Dkt. 1) if precision is required.

---

Related but distinct proceedings (do NOT attribute RE42828 to these)

To avoid confusion, the other Flexiworld matters I encountered did not assert RE42828:

• Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-00110-KKC (E.D. Ky., filed Apr. 29, 2022) — asserted US 9,965,233; US 10,642,576; US 10,846,031; and US RE42725 (a sibling reissue, not RE42828).
• Flexiworld v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00680-ADA (W.D. Tex.) — asserted US 9,042,811; 9,836,259; 9,965,233; 10,140,073; 10,768,871; 11,029,903.
• Flexiworld v. Amazon.com (W.D. Tex., and related Mopria subpoena litigation, N.D. Cal.).
• Flexiworld v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:22-cv-00228 (E.D. Tex.).
• Various Roku IPRs (e.g., IPR2021-00714 on US 8,989,064; IPR2022-01114 on US 9,965,233).

Note also that RE42828 is a reissue of U.S. Pat. No. 7,099,304, and the reissue family renumbering (RE41,416; RE41,487; RE41,532; RE41,689; RE41,882; RE42725; RE42828) can easily be conflated — I did not auto-correct any of these, and matches to similarly numbered patents (e.g., "8,146,428" in Total Rebuild v. PHC Fluid Power, or "the '428 patent" in a D. Del. pharmaceutical case) are unrelated patents and not RE42828.

---

Bottom line

• Known litigation specifically involving RE42828: one case — Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation, 2:23-cv-00616 (E.D. Tex.), filed Dec. 19, 2023, dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation.
• No CAFC appeal, no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) directed at RE42828, and no other district-court case asserting RE42828 was found in the sources searched.
• Caveat: the linkage of RE42828 to the Sony docket rests primarily on the Stanford NPE database; the amended complaint's patent list does not include it, so the association should be verified against the original complaint before being relied upon.

If greater certainty is required, the authoritative next steps would be (1) pulling Dkt. 1 (original complaint) from PACER for 2:23-cv-00616, and (2) running a full-text PACER/CourtListener search on "RE42828" and "4,282,8" variants across all district courts. I did not have a tool that indexes PACER full-text, so I cannot rule out a low-profile or consent-judgment case that never surfaced in the aggregator databases.

I'll start by validating the ODP "no proceedings" result against public sources.

Let me dig specifically for proceedings naming RE42828 or its original patent 7,099,304.

AIA Trial Proceedings — US RE42828 E1

Patent: US RE42828 E1 (“Communication between parties over the internet without revealing personal or security information”; Liu & Chang; assignee Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.)
Reissue of: US 7,099,304 (granted 2006-08-29)
Reissue app.: 12/199,631, filed 2008-08-27; reissue granted 2011-10-11
Source of record for this section: the structured “PTAB proceedings on file” block (USPTO Open Data Portal), plus independent web verification.

---

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings have ever been filed against RE42828: 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained on the merits, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. The ODP structured block returns no AIA trial proceedings, and my web verification (Google Patents family/litigation data, Stanford NPE Litigation Database, RPX litigation pages, and PTAB petition/papers artifacts) surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming RE42828 or its parent US 7,099,304.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB win to borrow. You cannot point to a Final Written Decision cancelling claims of RE42828, because none exists. That said, the more powerful defensive facts about this patent are non-PTAB ones:

1. The patent record shows RE42828 as Expired – Lifetime with an adjusted expiration of 2024-04-30 (Google Patents). If that date is correct, the patent has been expired for over 17 months as of today (2026-10-01), which caps exposure to past damages inside the § 286 six-year lookback and eliminates any injunction/ongoing-royalty theory. Caveat: Google’s legal-status field is expressly an assumption, not a legal conclusion — verify the expiration/PTA calculation against the face of RE42828 and the ‘304 patent before relying on it in correspondence.
2. The asserted claims have never been tested at the Board, despite Flexiworld’s long assertion history against Skype, Sony, Roku, Amazon, Lexmark, and others.

---

Per-proceeding detail

None — this section is intentionally empty. No AIA proceeding exists on RE42828, so there is no petition number, judge panel, institution decision, FWD, settlement, or appeal to report for this patent. I will not manufacture proceeding numbers.

Appendix — family-adjacent and portfolio-adjacent proceedings (NOT RE42828)

These are real Flexiworld PTAB matters I found in searching; none of them involve RE42828, and none of their outcomes transfer to RE42828. They are useful only as pattern evidence about how Flexiworld litigates and settles.

Flexiworld also obtained six separate reissues of the same US 7,099,304: RE41,416 (2010-07-06), RE41,487 (2010-08-10), RE41,532 (2010-08-17), RE41,689 (2010-09-14), RE41,882 (2010-10-26), and RE42828 (2011-10-11). Notably, none of the six drew an AIA petition.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on RE42828: all claims UNTESTED at the Board; nothing canceled, nothing sustained. Because there is no FWD, there is no claim-level disposition to report — and I will not impute one. Contrast this with the family’s later-division patents, where Flexiworld has had to defend: Roku obtained institution of a PGR on the ‘903 patent on written-description grounds (Rivera-type conflation of the information apparatus and output device), and got an IPR instituted on the ‘066 and ‘064 patents. Those fights were bought out, not won. On RE42828 itself, the earlier, narrower “anonymous voice communication with a transaction-specific reference code” claims have simply never been attacked in an AIA forum.

Estoppel landscape is clean. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted on RE42828, § 315(e)(2) estoppel has never attached to anyone with respect to this patent. There are no privies of a prior petitioner who are boxed out, no ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised, and therefore 100% of the prior-art space remains available to a defendant filing a fresh IPR — subject only to the ordinary § 311(b) printed-publication/patent limits (no public-use or on-sale art in an IPR) and § 325(d) discretion if the art is cumulative of prosecution. Practically, an IPR petition on RE42828 would be a first-instance petition with no General Plastic follow-on problem and no Fintiv overlap problem if you file before litigation reaches an advanced stage.

Pattern signals. Flexiworld is a serial, portfolio-wide asserter (Stanford NPE database classifies it as a failed-startup NPE; the Sony case 2:23-cv-00616 in E.D. Tex. is one of many). It litigates broadly and settles on license terms rather than fighting merits FWDs — the Roku PGR-‘903, IPR-‘066, IPR-‘064, and IPR2022-01112/-13/-14 cluster all died by agreement in October 2022. There is no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the RE42828 chain in anything I found — every flexiworld petitioner I could identify was a commercial defendant, not a collective. The absence of any IPR on a patent asserted since at least 2008 (against Skype) is itself a signal: either the asserted claims were narrow/expiring enough that defendants chose license-over-IPR economics, or the case never got to the point where an IPR made sense.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Verify expiration first, before anything else. If RE42828 indeed expired 2024-04-30, the correct response to a demand letter citing it is not an IPR — it is a letter citing the expiration and the § 286 six-year damages bar. Confirm the expiration/PTA math against the reissue certificate and the ‘304 patent face, since Google’s legal-status field is an assumption.
2. If expiration is wrong or if pre-expiration damages are genuinely in play, an IPR is wide open. No estoppel, no General Plastic successive-petition bar, and no Fintiv overlap if filed early. Budget for § 325(d) risk and for a § 112 written-description/priority attack, which is the theory that actually got traction against Flexiworld before the Roku settlement (see the ‘903 PGR institution and the Lexmark ‘402 petition’s Rivera argument).
3. Do not cite a nonexistent FWD. There is no RE42828 Final Written Decision to link to. The honest defensive framing is: “the patent has never been subjected to AIA review, and the family’s only merit-stage PTAB results were institution decisions bought out by license — not invalidity judgments.”
4. Track the Sony and Lexmark dockets. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corp., No. 2:23-cv-00616 (E.D. Tex., filed 2023-12-19) resolved by a joint stipulation dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs — meaning no merits ruling and no § 285 fees. If new cases are filed asserting RE42828 before expiration is sorted out, that docket is where any § 315(b) one-year clock would start for a defendant properly served with an RE42828 count.

Verification limitations, stated plainly: I could not run a live PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End docket query from this session, and the ODP structured block reports no proceedings. I found no contrary web evidence of an RE42828 proceeding. If you need certainty, pull the RE42828 application (12/199,631) proceeding record directly from PTAB E2E and search CourtListener for any Federal Circuit appeal naming RE42828 before relying on the zero-count result.

I'll reconstruct this chain from the patent record plus assignment/litigation sources. Let me pull the relevant data.

Let me pull the NPE database entry, litigation detail, and any assignment-record traces for this reissue.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US RE42828 E1

Patent: US RE42828 E1 — "Communication between parties over the internet without revealing personal or security information"
Reissue of: US 7,099,304 ("Apparatus, Methods and Systems for Anonymous Communication")
Reissue application: 12/199,631, filed 2008-08-27; granted 2011-10-11
Priority: Provisional 60/230,021, filed 2000-09-05

⚠️ Data-availability caveat (read first): I could not retrieve the Assignment Center abstract-of-title with reel/frame numbers from the sources reachable in this session. The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/, app no. 12/199,631 or patent no. RE42828) is the authoritative source and should be run for the reel/frame values. Everything below is grounded in what is documented — Google Patents legal events, USPTO PTAB/AO-120 filings that quote the chain, and court records. I have not invented reel/frame numbers to fill the gap. Where a field is unknown I say so.

---

Inventors

Pattern note: No evidence of the classic "inventors exit within 12 months of filing" fire-sale precursor. Both inventors are bound to the assignee across the 2001–2002 prosecution reassignment (37 CFR 3.73(b) statement in related application 10/053,651, filed 2002-01-18, which asserts Flexiworld owns "the entire right, title, and interest … by virtue of an assignment from each of the inventor(s)") and again in the 2013 confirmatory recordation. This is an inventor-founder-controlled chain, not a corporate R&D hand-off.

---

Original assignee

Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.

• Entity type as of the 2002 recordation: a Washington corporation (stated verbatim in the 37 CFR 3.73(b) statement for Ser. No. 10/053,651). Current state of incorporation not verified in this session.
• Primary line of business: originally a wireless-output/printing technology developer — a 2002 press piece ("Vancouver startup looks to revolutionize use of printers," The Columbian, Apr. 18, 2002, cited in Flexiworld's Lexmark complaint) describes a Vancouver, WA/Portland-area startup whose mobile-printing concept Lexmark's alliances manager called "ahead of its time." Later self-described and judicially described as a patent-licensing company (Actionable Intelligence).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? No — by Flexiworld's own admission. In the E.D. Ky. consolidated order (Flexiworld v. Lexmark, 5:22-cv-00097, quoting DE 33 ¶ 57): "Since issuance of each of the Patents-in-Suit, Flexiworld has not made, offered for sale, sold, or imported a product that practices any of the Patents-in-Suit or that would otherwise require marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287." That § 287 admission is the single most probative document in this file.
• Current status: operating as a licensing/assertion entity. Stanford's NPE Litigation Database tags Flexiworld with asserter category "3 Failed startup." Google Patents records RE42828 as Expired – Lifetime, adjusted expiration 2024-04-30.

---

Assignment timeline

Only one post-issuance recorded transfer surfaces in the machine-readable record (Google Patents legal events for USRE42828E1). A second, earlier inventor→company assignment is referenced but its reel/frame was not retrievable.

1. Pre-2002 (execution date not determined) / recording date not retrieved — Reel not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → company)
   • Assignor: William Ho Chang; Christina Ying Liu
   • Assignee: Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved for this recording. (For context only — the prosecution correspondent of record for the family was Edward B. Anderson, Kolisch Hartwell, P.C., 200 Pacific Building, 520 S.W. Yamhill Street, Portland, OR 97204, Customer No. 23581; co-counsel of record included John M. McCormack et al. This is prosecution counsel, not an assignment-recordation correspondent, and should not be conflated.)
   • Context: original formation of title — inventor-founder transfer to the startup. Evidenced by the 2002 37 CFR 3.73(b) statement in Ser. No. 10/053,651 ("Copies of assignments or other documents in the chain of title are attached").

2. 2013-06-20 (recording date per Google Patents legal events) / execution date not retrieved — Reel not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
   • Assignor: CHANG, WILLIAM HO; LIU, CHRISTINA YING
   • Assignee: FLEXIWORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved — no correspondent field was exposed in the accessible event record.
   • Context: change/confirmation of title only — a confirmatory inventor→assignee recordation for the reissue; no third party enters the chain. Notably, this predates the 2021–2024 assertion wave by ~8 years and is not a pre-litigation transfer.

No further recorded assignments found. In particular, there is no record in the accessible data of any transfer to an "IP/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures" LLC, no security interest, no merger, and no assignment to a known NPE (Acacia, Marathon, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc.). Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. is both the original and the current assignee.

Related reissues filed the same week (for chain cross-checking)

The specification lists sibling reissue applications of the same '304 patent, all filed 2008-08-27/28 by the same owner: Ser. Nos. 12/199,647; 12/199,711 (RE41,416); 12/200,014 (RE41,487); 12/200,148 (RE41,532); 12/200,305 (RE41,689); 12/200,645 (RE41,882). A further sibling reissue, RE43,181 ("Communication between parties or stations over a network"), is likewise recorded to Flexiworld. The family was reissued en bloc by the original owner — a classic pre-assertion portfolio hardening move (2008 reissues immediately before the first licensing campaign), though no transfer accompanied it.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US RE42828
    2000 : Provisional 60230021 filed by inventors
    2002 : Inventor to company assignment recorded
    2006 : Parent US 7099304 issued
    2008 : Reissue application 12 199631 filed
    2011 : RE42828 granted to Flexiworld Technologies Inc
    2013 : Inventors confirm assignment to Flexiworld
    2021 : Flexiworld licensing campaign begins
    2023 : Flexiworld sues Sony in E D Tex

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The accessible title record shows the patent never leaving Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., the original Washington corporation named on the reissue. There is no LLC assignee, no registered-agent address, no single-purpose vehicle. Current assignee per Google Patents: Flexiworld Technologies Inc. This is the decisive negative finding in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present (moderate form). Flexiworld is not on the classic enumerated lists in the prompt, but it is listed as a patent asserter in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (asserter category "3 Failed startup"), at https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/re42828 and https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/flexiworld-technologies-inc-0. Its litigation footprint is high-frequency and serial: Epson (C.D. Cal. 8:21-cv-00807, filed 2021-04-29), Roku (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00680), Lexmark (E.D. Ky. 5:22-cv-00097 & 5:22-cv-00098, filed 2022-04-15 — four separate complaints), Brother (W.D. Tenn. 2:22-cv-02237 and 2:22-cv-02250), Hisense (E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00225/00227/00228; N.D. Ga. 1:22-cv-04338), Xerox (W.D.N.Y. 6:23-cv-06371, filed 2023-06-29), Sony (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00616, filed 2023-12-19), plus a W.D. Tex. action against Amazon. Flexiworld's patents also populate the Unified Patents portal (e.g. portal.unifiedpatents.com patent pages for the Flexiworld family).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (data gap), leaning not present. No correspondent field was retrievable for either recorded link. There is no evidence of a single repeat NPE-recording attorney running a chain of shell LLCs here, because there is no chain of shell LLCs. Do not read Kolisch Hartwell's prominence (Edward B. Anderson; John M. McCormack) as an assignment-correspondent signal — those are the family's prosecution attorneys, a materially different role.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. One confirmatory recordation (2013-06-20) plus the original founder transfer. No consecutive LLC chain, no <24-month cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The only dated recordation (2013-06-20) precedes the first Flexiworld wave (2021) by eight years. No assignment within 6 months of any suit naming this patent.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 record, no stalking-horse sale, no SEC-reported asset sale surfaced. The asset was retained and asserted, not liquidated.

7. Privateering — not present. No operating company (printer OEM or otherwise) transferred these patents to Flexiworld to assert against competitors. Lexmark, Epson, Brother, Canon and Sony appear on the defendant side, not as transferors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified or OIN. RPX/Unified appear only as adverse databases, not as assignees.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The ownership-chain signals (1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) are all absent — this is not a shell-LLC conveyor-belt portfolio; US RE42828 stayed with its original Washington corporation from the 2002 inventor assignment through the 2013-06-20 confirmatory recordation to today. What drives the NPE call is behavioural, not chain-structural: (a) Flexiworld's own § 287 admission in the E.D. Ky. action that it has "not made, offered for sale, sold, or imported a product that practices any of the Patents-in-Suit"; (b) Stanford's NPE Litigation Database listing Flexiworld as a patent asserter under "Failed startup"; and (c) a serial 2021–2024 assertion campaign against Epson, Roku, Lexmark, Brother, Hisense, Xerox and Sony. That is one strong signal plus corroborating litigation-venue evidence, which maps to moderate rather than high confidence.

Verification: search patent no. RE42828 or application 12/199,631 at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) to capture the reel/frame and correspondent fields that this session could not retrieve; cross-check the legal-event record at https://patents.google.com/patent/USRE42828/en and the asserter entry at https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/re42828.

I'll research this systematically. Let me start by searching for the patent in USPTO databases and its citations.

Let me look for the specific prior-art citations listed on the RE42828 patent front page.

Let me retrieve the front-page citation lists from Justia and Google Patents directly.

Prior-Art Analysis — US RE42,828 E1

1. Identification of the patent (literal reading)

Two points bear on any § 102 analysis:

• RE42,828 is a reissue of US 7,099,304. Reissue claims are examined as if presented in the original application, so the critical date for § 102 prior art runs from the 2000-09-05 priority date (not from the 2008 reissue filing or 2011 grant). A reference that post-dates 2000-09-05 is not § 102 anticipation art against RE42,828.
• The reissue was one of a group of co-pending reissues of the '304 patent (Ser. Nos. 12/199,647; 12/199,711 → RE41,416; 12/200,014 → RE41,487; 12/200,148 → RE41,532; 12/200,305 → RE41,689; 12/200,645 → RE41,882). These are same-family continuations, not prior art to one another.

2. What RE42,828 actually claims (frame for anticipation)

The independent claims recite: (a) providing an interface for input of a transaction specification from at least one of first/second stations; (b) generating a reference code associated with the transaction, with a defined relationship between the reference code and the second station's voice-communication address; (c) supplying the reference code to at least the first station; (d) receiving a voice-communication request and the reference code from the first station; (e) using the reference code to recover said address; and (f) opening a voice channel between the stations without providing the address to the first station. The apparatus claim (col. claim 33 of the '304 parent) recites "means for enabling negotiation of a transaction specification." Any anticipating reference must disclose the transaction-specification-driven reference code mapped to a withheld address — the inventive core.

3. Important limitation on this report

I must be explicit rather than guess: the front-page "References Cited" (U.S. Patent Documents / Foreign Documents) list for RE42,828 was not retrievable through the tools available to me. The authoritative full text you supplied stops before the (56) references block, and my searches returned the specification, family members, and litigation/PTAB documents but not the verbatim examiner citation list.

• Search results confirm the family and assignee but did not surface the enumerated cited patents: Google Patents entry (https://patents.google.com/patent/[USRE42828](/patent/USRE42828)/en) references the family link https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=26923835 and the NPE litigation record (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/re42828).
• Because I cannot verify the exact cited patent numbers, I will not fabricate a "References Cited" list. A fabricated citation list with specific numbers would be worse than none.

So what follows distinguishes (A) prior art acknowledged within the patent's own text (which I can quote from the supplied specification), and (B) prior art raised by third parties (PTAB/IPR and district-court records) against this patent family. To complete category (C) — the examiner's official cited references — the USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited"/"Foreign References" tab for App. 12/199,631 (or the IFW/"SCORE" placeholder sheets for the reissue) should be pulled directly.

4. Prior art acknowledged in the RE42,828 specification

These are the systems the patent itself describes as pre-existing (the "Background" portion), and they are the most natural § 102/§ 103 candidates because the applicant admitted them:

1. "User code" directory system. Individuals/entities are assigned a user code uniquely identifying the user; stored in a database and associated with the user's telephone number. An observer dials the marketplace, enters the user code, and the system places the observer on hold, retrieves the participant's number, calls the participant, and bridges the call so the observer never learns the number. The patent identifies the shortfall: "user code is not sufficient to identify and describe different transactions having different transaction specifications and connection criteria." Potentially anticipates claims directed only to code-based retrieval and bridging; does not disclose the transaction-specification / reference-code-per-transaction element, so it is weak on the independent claims.

2. "Contact code" scheduled-call system. Each user is assigned a contact code identifying them as a party to a scheduled voice communication (possibly a call code + password). The parties call in separately at the scheduled time, enter their codes, and the system compares codes and connects the calls if proper. Potentially anticipates claims reciting code entry and a scheduled connection, but again lacks the transaction-specification interface and the single-station reference-code-recovery of a withheld address.

3. Contact-code extension with stored record. After a first successful connection, the system records the two parties and thereafter places a call to the non-calling party when one party dials in and enters their code. The patent notes the shortfall: "this method requires participants placing separate phone calls to the service/system at the same time." Relevant to claims reciting one-party initiation / calling the non-calling party.

4. Information-marketplace voice bridging (general background). The initiator submits a voice-communication request over the Internet; the marketplace contacts the expert (via Internet/VoIP or telephone), holds the link, establishes the initiator connection, and bridges. The patent frames this as prior practice and its problem (undesired unannounced calls, loss of schedule control).

These four are the "references" the patent expressly treats as the state of the art. Only (1) and (2) come closest to a reference-code-format anticipation, and neither is an anticipatory § 102 reference for the independent claims because each omits the transaction specification → generated reference code → address recovery chain.

5. Prior art asserted by third parties against this family

The most concrete external prior-art activity on this family comes from PTAB IPR proceedings in which the Liu/Chang patent is used as prior art, and from district-court litigation:

• IPR2018-01083 (Google, re U.S. 9,445,251 — Fumarolo) — Petitioner Google relied on the Liu reference (this family, cited as Ex. 1008) combined with Fumarolo '782/'844 and Muramatsu. The Board denied/declined the combination, reasoning that Liu's method "may require a user to input a transaction specification into an interface … which is used to generate a reference code … before an anonymous communication may be initiated," and therefore did not fairly suggest direct in-map initiation. This is instructive: the Board read Liu's transaction-specification limitation as its distinguishing feature — the same feature that gives RE42,828 its novelty over the category-4 background art.
• Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corporation, No. 2:23-cv-00616 (E.D. Tex.) — an assertion involving RE42,828 (per Stanford NPE database).
• Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00819 (W.D. Tex.) — related family assertions.
• A Unified Patents prior-art contest targeted the parent US 7,099,304 (claim 1), and expressly instructed that "prior art that has been previously cited during prosecution will not be considered" — corroborating that the examiner's cited list is distinct from the litigation art. https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/jHcHQadgDivM9B7jh

None of these third-party references can be given a final § 102 mapping without the actual claim charts, and I will not invent reference numbers or dates for them.

6. Honest conclusion and recommended next step

• I could not verify the official front-page "References Cited" list for RE42,828 from the sources available, so I cannot responsibly name each cited patent with its number, date, and claim-by-claim § 102 mapping as requested. Producing that list from memory would risk fabricating patent numbers, which the operating rules prohibit.
• What is grounded in the record: (i) RE42,828 is a reissue of US 7,099,304, priority 2000-09-05, so only pre-2000-09-05 art is § 102 prior art; (ii) the specification itself acknowledges user-code, contact-code, and marketplace-bridging prior systems — the only anticipatory candidates are those two code-based systems, and each fails to disclose the transaction-specification-generated reference code tied to a withheld address that the independent claims require; and (iii) the PTAB (IPR2018-01083) treated this family's transaction-specification interface as the point of distinction from other art.
• To obtain the verbatim cited-reference list (USPTO "References Cited" / foreign references), retrieve the IFW/"SCORE" documents for App. 12/199,631 on USPTO PatentCenter, or the (56) block of the RE42,828 grant PDF (https://patents.google.com/patent/USRE42828/en). Once that list is in hand, I can map each cited reference to claims 1, 30, and 33 (parent numbering) under § 102.

If you can supply the (56) references block from the printed RE42,828 front page, I will immediately produce the full per-reference citation/date/description/§ 102-mapping table you asked for.

I'll research the prior art relevant to RE42828, including references cited on its face and in the family.

I found several prior-art leads, but I need to note something important first. Let me continue researching the specific references.

Excellent — I now have strong prior-art leads. Let me nail down a few more references relevant to the "reference code decoupled from address" feature.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. RE42828 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Flag before anything else: the "Prior Art section" was not provided

Your instruction says to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." No Prior Art section appears anywhere in the material supplied to me — the two prior sections in this thread are the Patent summary and the Litigation summary, and neither contains a prior-art listing. This is a genuine gap, not a formatting issue, so rather than silently invent one I reconstructed the art base from three verifiable sources:

1. The patent's own applicant-admitted background art (the "user code" and "contact code" systems described in the specification — those admissions are usable as prior art);
2. Prior art asserted in the Flexiworld family's own PTAB records (the Lexmark and Roku IPRs);
3. Independent references I could date and corroborate from public records.

If the platform's Prior Art section contains a specific reference list, feed it to me and I will re-run the mapping against those exact documents — the structural analysis below will not change, but the specific citation substitutes will.

---

1. Legal frame and critical dates

Because the reissue claim 1 drops the word "voice" that appeared in the original's first aspect, the § 103 analysis must be run against the broadened claim — generic "communication" over a packet network, not just voice. Broader claims are easier to invalidate; every combination below therefore applies with more force than it would to the original claim.

Person of ordinary skill (POSITA): Based on the PTAB's own formulation adopted in Chegg v. Netsoc, IPR2019-01171 (Final Written Decision), a suitable POSITA for this art has "a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science or a similar technical field together with 2 years of … work experience in … software development (including programming for client-server systems, databases and networks)." The same decision held that where prior art renders the subject matter obvious to a less experienced artisan, it is obvious to a more experienced one (Tokai). I adopt that formulation. Applied here, the POSITA is a late-1990s engineer who builds client-server databases and telephony/packet-network gateways — exactly the intersection this patent sits in.

---

2. The art base (with dates and verified provenance)

URLs: RE42828 — https://patents.google.com/patent/[USRE42828](/patent/USRE42828)/en ; Walker '223 application record — https://www.docketalarm.com/patentapps/US/08-685,706/ ; Walker '223 as applied by PTAB — https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/PTAB-IPR2019-01171-39.pdf and https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-01171/Chegg_Inc._v._NETSOC_LLC/ ; DuVal '836 record — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00312/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._5818836/ ; Theimer '865 — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1b/e0/1f/e582fe6980bbea/[US5812865](/patent/US5812865).pdf ; Beser — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9c/7a/c1/869e3de188c54f/[US6928070](/patent/US6928070).pdf

Confidence caveats I will not paper over. I verified Walker '223's identity, dates, and content as characterized in two PTAB records; I did not personally read its full 200+ claims column-by-column. I verified DuVal '836's title, dates, and the content of its matchcode/anonymous-voice disclosure as recited in the '836 patent-owner declaration and exhibits in IPR2013-00312. I verified Theimer '865's abstract and claims scope directly from the patent PDF. Beser's exact filing/publication dates need confirmation before it is relied on as § 102(e) art — treat that row as a lead, not a lock.

---

3. Element-by-element mapping — Claim 1

Claim 1 (as verified earlier in this thread) requires: two stations directly connected to a packet data network; an interface for a transaction specification from at least one station; generation of a reference code associated with the transaction having a defined relationship to the second station's address; supply of the code to the first station; receipt of a communication request + the code; use of the code to recover the address; opening a channel between the stations; all without giving the first station the second station's address.

Result: Claim 1 is prima facie obvious over Walker '223 in view of DuVal '836, further in view of Theimer '865, with Beser as an alternative to Theimer for the packet-address-hiding limitation. No single reference needs to do everything, and the missing pieces are supplied by references in the same field addressing the same problem.

---

4. Claim 55 (first-station apparatus)

Claim 55 is a device claim: an Internet-enabled device with an interface (dependent 56 adds a touch-sensitive display), configured so the second party's address is never revealed; dependents add a wireless component, device types (screen phone, smart phone, super phone, wireless PDA, Internet-enabled cellular phone, wireless Internet appliance, laptop, PC), transmission of the first party's identity over the packet network, and VoIP.

This claim is the weakest of the three independents. Its elements are the station side of the same broker:

• Marrying a wireless handheld to an Internet-access service that brokers anonymous connections is squarely the admitted art. The specification's own Background states: "The Internet is extending in wireless communication and handheld devices … Internet-enabled cellular phones (such as smart and super phones) combine the features of cellular phones with the ability to access the Internet … certain personal digital assistants ('PDAs') are directed to couple standard features with wireless access to the Internet." Applicant admissions of this kind are prior art.
• Touch-sensitive display interfaces were conventional by 2000 (PDAs, touchscreen kiosks), and the patent treats them as an implementation detail (claims 56, and FIGS. 5–6 simply show "virtual buttons 178, 180 … selectable … by tapping on them if the display is touch sensitive").
• VoIP was standard by the priority date (the spec admits "voice over Internet protocol ('VoIP')" and packet-switched voice as known).
• Transmitting the first party's identity is taught by Walker's user-registration/verification and by Theimer's profile exchange.

Motivation: mobility and ubiquity — the same reason the specification gives for the Internet extending to handhelds. Combining DuVal's anonymous-voice service with the admitted trend toward Internet-enabled wireless handhelds yields claim 55 as a predictable configuration of known elements (KSR).

---

5. Claim 60 (apparatus; plural second stations; "publish-but-withhold")

This is where the reissue added its most interesting structure, and it is also the claim for which the art is most abundant. Its means-plus-function elements:

1. receive a transaction specification from each of a plurality of second stations (product, service, and/or information);
2. receive a connection instruction from each, including an address and/or security information;
3. post over the Internet at least part of the transaction information while withholding the security information;
4. verify the identity of the first party;
5. receive a transaction specification from the first party for a selected second party;
6. provide a reference code to the first station (defined relationship to the selected party's connection instruction);
7. receive/process a communication request using the code;
8. open a channel without the second party's address/security info reaching the first party, the channel including a packet data network directly connected to at least one station.

Mapping:

• Elements 1, 2, 5 — Walker '223. Walker's expert-side registration (profile, fees, availability, contact/billing data) plus consumer-side request and selection is a one-for-one read on "receive specifications and connection instructions from a plurality of experts; receive a request from a consumer for a selected expert." The IPR2019-01171 record shows Walker was found to teach both a networked system with memory/processors and the rating and response-time databases — i.e., structured per-provider records.
• Element 3 — Walker '223 and Walker '270. Walker '223's operator "may want to intentionally withhold" information about one or both parties; Walker '270 expressly frames introductions as governed by privacy policies that control release of personal data and reachability. Publishing the non-secret part of a provider's profile while holding back contact/security information is the explicit teaching of both.
• Element 4 — Walker '223 / Theimer '865. Walker's system authenticates the user and accounts to the user's account; Theimer checks each user's profiles and policies before establishing a path (the "consistency" test).
• Element 6 — DuVal '836 (matchcode/entered code matched by the service) — resolves the "reference code with a defined relationship to the connection instruction."
• Element 7 — DuVal '836 / Theimer '865 — receive the request and resolve it.
• Element 8 — DuVal '836 (voice) + Theimer '865 or Beser (packet path). DuVal supplies "connect the two parties while keeping identities confidential"; Theimer supplies establishing a media path through computing devices, and Beser supplies doing so over a packet network with the real address hidden behind a trusted third party.

Result: Claim 60 is prima facie obvious over Walker '223 in view of DuVal '836 and Theimer '865 (Beser as an alternative for the packet-hiding limitation), with Walker '270 as a strong secondary reference for the publish-but-withhold structure.

---

6. Dependent claims 62–65

These dependents fall with their parents under the same combinations; each is a conventional implementation choice with no unexpected result.

---

7. Motivation to combine (the KSR rationales)

The Federal Circuit and PTAB require an articulated reason, and here the record supplies several independent ones — any one suffices:

1. Same field, same problem. Walker '223 and DuVal '836 both broker contact between strangers while shielding identity; the PTAB itself found Walker and a matching-system reference were "in the same field and address the same problems" concerning matching consumers with providers and "protect[ing] contact information" (IPR2019-01171 FWD).
2. The competitor-bypass / monetization rationale. The single strongest motivation. Both Walker references state the operator wants to prevent the parties from transacting outside the system so it can collect its fee. Withholding the address while providing a code-mediated connection is the direct means to that end. The PTAB credited precisely this reasoning: shielding contact information prevents "the loss of fees due to out-of-system communications."
3. Privacy rationale. The patent's own premise — that users avoid disclosing phone numbers — is a motivation the prior art itself supplies (Walker '270's privacy policies; Beser's packet-anonymity).
4. Predictable combination of known techniques. KSR holds that "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious." Substituting a packet-network/VoIP channel for DuVal's circuit-switched channel, and a transaction-specific code for a user code, are exactly such improvements.
5. Design incentives / market pressure. The late-1990s rush to online expert marketplaces (Walker/Priceline, Expertcity, chat-room user-code systems) created an explicit incentive to add voice and scheduling to text-only marketplace communication — which is the patent's own stated motivation, drawn from admitted prior-art shortcomings.

---

8. The strongest counterarguments — and why they likely fail

I owe you the other side, because a § 103 conclusion that ignores it is not an analysis.

(a) "Transaction-specific vs. user-specific code." The specification's entire stated point of novelty is that a user code "is not sufficient to identify and describe different transactions having different transaction specifications and connection criteria." The argument would be that Walker teaches per-expert records, not per-transaction codes, so the specific "reference code associated with the transaction" is not disclosed.
Rebuttal: Generating a distinct identifier for each transaction rather than each user is a routine database/programming choice with a predictable benefit (billing per transaction, distinguishing concurrent engagements). KSR forecloses "obvious to try" arguments of this kind absent unexpected results; here there are none. Additionally, the admitted callback-record art (the '304 background's "the service/system creates … a record indicative of these two parties and/or of the connection") already ties connection data to a specific connection, not merely a user.

(b) "Defined relationship between code and address." One could argue Walker withholds contact info but never resolves a code to an address to open a channel.
Rebuttal: That is precisely DuVal '836 and Theimer '865. DuVal resolves the entered codes and connects the parties' lines; Theimer resolves the recipient and establishes the media path. The combination supplies the element.

(c) "Verify the identity of the first party" (claim 60). Walker verifies users for billing/authentication and Theimer tests profile/policy consistency; this is met.

(d) Secondary considerations. No evidence of unexpected results, long-felt unmet need, copying, or industry praise targeting these claims has surfaced in the litigation record I reviewed (Flexiworld v. Sony, 2:23-cv-00616, was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation with no merits ruling — so there is no adjudicated validity determination to cite either way). Flexiworld's general commercial-pioneer narrative, proffered in the Lexmark IPR on a different patent, is not tied to these claims and would carry little nexus weight.

(e) Recapture / reissue-specific risk (not § 103, but relevant). Because the reissue broadened claim 1 by deleting "voice," the reissue is exposed to a recapture challenge (the reissue cannot claim something surrendered during the original prosecution) and possibly an original-patent-claim requirement issue. These are distinct from § 103 but compound the overall exposure.

---

9. Bottom line

The single most dangerous reference is Walker '223, because it independently supplies the marketplace controller, the transaction specifications, the profiles, the ratings/scheduling, the fee motive, and the express teaching to withhold contact information to protect that fee. Combined with DuVal '836, which supplies the anonymous, code-matched, identity-concealing connection, the remaining elements (packet-network transport, code→address resolution, channel opening) are supplied by Theimer '865 or Beser or by the POSITA's own knowledge — making the reissue claims vulnerable to a § 103 challenge under KSR.

What I could not verify and would need before treating this as filing-ready:

• The full claim set and numbering of RE42828 as issued (my mapping uses only the claim text verified earlier in this thread; claims 2–54 and 66+ are unmapped);
• Whether the platform's Prior Art section names different or additional references — feed it to me and I will re-run the mapping;
• The exact column/line citations for Walker '223, DuVal '836, and Walker '270 from the primary documents (I have verified characterizations from PTAB records, not a first-hand page-and-line read of each);
• Beser's precise filing/publication dates, to confirm § 102(e) status.

Any of those could shift a specific citation, but none of them would change the structural conclusion: the claimed subject matter is a predictable combination of a known anonymity-brokering marketplace (Walker) with a known code-matched anonymous connection (DuVal), implemented with known packet-network machinery (Theimer/Beser).