Advanced technological and IP solutions for the wireless industry, especially handover, RF simulation, mobility, advanced/pro-active resource allocation, and many applications for 4G LTE & 5G Networks.
Innovators in wireless certification, testing, and fast mobility handover
WINTERS, Texas, September 22, 2021 (Newswire.com) – Last August, Mobility Workx, LLC and Verizon Wireless reached a licensing agreement and ended a four-year patent dispute over Mobility Workx’s wireless patent portfolio. Principals of Mobility Workx, Dr. Edwin Hernandez and Dr. Sumi Helal, were present at the settlement negotiation.
The licensed patents were invented around 2002 as part of Dr. Hernandez’ doctoral research at the University of Florida that was directed by Dr. Helal at his Mobile Computing Lab. In early 2000s, Dr. Helal was the director of the Mobile Computing Lab where he directed the inception and creation of many innovative technologies that were envisioned decades before their realization into actual wireless networks and mobile computing devices that we have and use today on a daily basis.
“We thereby deliver benefits to both licensors and licensees,” said Michael Machat, lead attorney for Mobility Workx.
Some of the licensed patents provided a cost-effective solution for wireless handset testing using emulation. Others provided intelligent algorithms and methods to speed up handoff processing – a key requirement in modern wireless communication networks.
Dr. Hernandez owns EGLA CORP – a technology company and runs its technology incubator, the EGLAVATOR, in Boca Raton, Florida. He is also founder and CEO of MEVIA, a Cloud-to-cable technology and platform as a service company.
Dr. Helal is professor at the University of Florida and the founder of several startups including Mobility Workx, Rokiot USA, Spaceify Oy, Finland, Phoneomena, Inc., and Pervasa, Inc.
The Mobility Workx’ portfolio is available for licensing in the areas of wireless certification, testing, and fast mobility handover for both 4G and 5G systems.
Our team at Mobility Workx, LLC is proud of our accomplishments and among many engagements a year, Dr. Helal a was invited to be a ICCSA’s keynote speaker with a lecture on “Digital Health: Back to the Future”. The “International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications” just last week (21st edition) was held in Cagliary, Italy.
The vision and hope of Digital Health is to transform the current fragmented and reactive primary care system (a point-of-care paradigm) into an integrated, proactive Health Management System – a continuum-of-care paradigm capable of providing personalized and timely guidance and just-in-time interventions, while availing real-time, individual- and population-level health information to individuals, healthcare organizations, governments, and policy makers. In this talk, I will provide a critical review of the key advances achieved in the past 20 years but also the mistakes made, missed opportunities, and in general lessons learnt through research conducted to enable digital health and especially the personal health area. I will present 7 key such lessons and close by summarizing the challenges ahead and potential paths forward.
Mobility Works briefs was also covered indicating that :
Patent owner Mobility Workx suggested remand as the appropriate remedy in its pending appeal.
“In view of Arthrex, Mobility submits that the PTAB panel’s decision should be vacated and the present case remanded to the PTO for the director to issue a certificate confirming the challenged claims,” it said. It argues the board erred by failing to reach a final determination in its case within the statutory 12- or 18-month period.
1. “Whether the unusual structure for instituting and funding AIA post-grant reviews violates the Due Process Clause in view of Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), and its progeny, which establish ‘structural bias’ as a violation of due process.”
2. “Whether the Director’s delegation of his responsibility to make final unreviewable institution decisions to the same APJ’s who make the Final Written Decision violates the Administrative Procedures Act and/or the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.”
3. “Whether subjecting the Pre-AIA ’417 Patent to an AIA Proceeding so fundamentally different from the post review proceedings that existed at the time Mobility’s inventors applied for and obtained their patent constitutes an unlawful taking of property.”
4. “Whether the PTAB’s decisions should be vacated and remanded because the PTAB panel that decided the cases was unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause.”
5. “Whether the PTAB’s holding of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 unpatentable over Liu or Liu and Gwon should be reversed because its finding that Liu or Liu and Gwon teach or suggest a ghost-mobile node ‘triggering signals’ that are ‘required to allocate resources and initiate mobility on behalf of the mobile node’ is not supported by substantial evidence.”