[payne92]

That's a good start, but there's more to claim 1:

...filter the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective photographic image within the plurality of photographic images, wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the respective photographic image; and transmit, via the wireless transmitter and to a second mobile device, the filtered plurality of photographic images.

Invaliding prior art has to cover every single thing in the claim. (And my hunch is that it's out there).

[colonwqbang]

Based on my understanding, the patent still needs to represent an "inventive step" from the prior art. Let's say you can show that

A. Classifying images based on a (pre-existing?) identification; B. Filtering images based on classification; C. Wirelessly transmitting images

were all known at the time. Then you could argue that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would have known to combine A+B+C to solve the problem. Thus the prior art teaches the invention and the patent should be declared invalid.

[pkilgore]

This isn't wrong. But it's oversimplified and in practice in the US obviousness arguments have a low likelihood of success, lower if it gets too a jury trial.

You are much better off defending again infringement suits with novelty arguments.

[amelius]

Perhaps some NASA software does this, considering the cost of sending each and every image?

[GoblinSlayer]

Shouldn't infringement match all claims too? SQL did filtering using transfer criteria 45 years ago.