US 10171458

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any litigation activity.

Let me run additional targeted searches on litigation and the patent's family.

Let me check for any PTAB or appeal activity specific to this patent number.

US Patent 10,171,458 B2 — Analyst Summary

Sourcing note: The bibliographic data below is drawn from the patent's own front page (via the USPTO/Google Patents PDF) and the full specification text supplied in your prompt. I also ran targeted searches of USPTO/PTAB and CAFC-related results; I found no litigation, IPR, or Federal Circuit docket entries naming patent 10,171,458. Please treat the "litigation" section as a negative finding with a stated confidence caveat rather than proof of absence.

---

1. Bibliographic data (as printed on the patent)

Priority chain / family: The patent is a continuation-in-part of US App. 13/601,829 (filed Aug. 31, 2012, published as US 2014/0068725 A1), which the specification states is "now abandoned." The parent's international family includes PCT/US2013/049452 (WO 2014/035548 A1) and a German counterpart (DE 112013004312 B4). Note the family relationship is to the parent, not to this CIP.

---

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"In a first implementation, a host determines to pair with a device and transmits biometric data for a user to the device. The device receives the transmitted biometric data and compares such to device biometric data to determine whether or not to pair with the host and/or what data stored by the device to allow the host to access. The host then accesses data of the device to which the device has allowed access. In another implementation, a device determines to pair with a host and transmits biometric data for a user to the host. The host receives the transmitted biometric data and compares such to device biometric data to determine whether or not to pair with the device and/or what data stored by the host to allow the device to access. The device then accesses data of the host to which the host has allowed access."

---

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — System (device side), touchscreen + biometric sensor:
A device (one processing unit, wireless component, touchscreen, biometric sensor, storage medium) is programmed to:

1. Display a pairing prompt on the touchscreen when the host and device are within wireless range of each other;
2. Capture biometric data with the biometric sensor when the user initiates pairing via the touchscreen;
3. Receive a configuration file from the host based at least on that captured biometric data — where the config file specifies an arrangement of navigation items in the host's user interface;
4. Reconfigure the device's own UI navigation-item arrangement to match the host's arrangement, "thereby causing a configuration of the device to resemble the configuration of the host."

In short: a touch-to-pair, biometric-gated flow whose payload is a UI/navigation-item configuration that the device adopts to mirror the host.

Claim 4 — System (device side), generic user-interface component:
A device (processing unit, wireless component, user-interface component that captures biometric data, storage medium) is programmed to:

1. Capture biometric data via the UI component when the user initiates pairing with a host;
2. Transmit the biometric data to the host;
3. Receive a configuration file associated with the host's configuration based at least on the transmitted biometric data, the config file specifying an arrangement of navigation items in the host's UI;
4. In response, reconfigure the device's UI navigation-item arrangement to be substantially the same as the host's.

In short: same concept as Claim 1 but claim 1 is tied to touchscreen + biometric sensor and "resemble," whereas Claim 4 uses a generic UI component and the "substantially the same as" standard.

Claim 13 — Method (device side):
A method comprising: (a) determining, using a device, to pair with a host; (b) capturing biometric data via a device UI component when initiating pairing; (c) transmitting the biometric data to the host over the device's wireless component; (d) receiving a configuration file associated with the host's configuration based on the transmitted biometric data, the file specifying an arrangement of navigation items in the host's UI; and (e) changing the device's UI navigation-item arrangement to be substantially the same as the host's.

In short: the method-claim counterpart of Claim 4, adding the explicit "determining to pair" step as an affirmative limitation.

Dependent claims of note (for context, not independent):

• Cl. 2, 5, 14 add config-file content: background images, display/sound/language/default/alert settings, browser bookmarks, navigation items.
• Cl. 3 recites that a navigation item is an icon.
• Cl. 6–7, 17–19 cover modifying biometric data before transmission (hashing and/or encryption).
• Cl. 8, 15 enumerate biometric types (fingerprint, palm print, handprint, facial image, retinal image, voice signature).
• Cl. 9, 20 cover the touchscreen-with-fingerprint-reader "press the prompt" flow; Cl. 10, 21 the microphone/voice-signature flow; Cl. 11, 22 the fingerprint-reader flow.
• Cl. 12 recites host = first smartphone, device = second smartphone.
• Cl. 16 recites cloud-computing implementation.

Drafting quirks worth flagging (literally, no auto-correction):

• Claim 3 recites "The method of claim 1" even though claim 1 is a system claim.
• Claims 6–12 each recite "The system of claim 2," while claim 2 is styled as "The system as in claim 1" (a system dependent) — internally these dependency references are unusual/inconsistent.
• Claim 13's preamble contains the typo "wireless paring" (not "pairing"), and claim 4 contains "configured to captured biometric data."
• These are as-issued text issues; I am reporting them, not correcting them.

---

4. Litigation / PTAB / CAFC status — negative finding

• No U.S. district court complaint, IPR/PGR petition, or Federal Circuit appeal naming US 10,171,458 was surfaced in my searches of 2026 docket-related results. The 2026 CAFC/Apple patent news that appeared (e.g., MPH Technologies Oy v. Apple, the Taction Technology haptics verdict concerning U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, Apple v. Smart Mobile Technologies, Carbyne Biometrics IPRs) involves different patent numbers and I did not find any link to 10,171,458.
• Confidence: Moderate. Public patent-litigation aggregators and search engines do not reliably index every docket, so I cannot affirmatively rule out an unreported suit, a sealed proceeding, or a state-court/ITC action. If you need a definitive answer, the authoritative check is the USPTO PatentCenter "Litigation" tab / Assignment records and PACER/Docket Alarm by patent number, which I could not fully traverse here.

5. Points of uncertainty

• The Google Patents page lists a "prior art date" of 2012-08-31 and shows the parent 13/601,829 as "abandoned," which I have taken from the patent's own front page; effective priority may be contested because the CIP added new matter (configuration-file/UI-rearrangement subject matter) not necessarily supported in the 2012 parent.
• The adjusted expiration of 2033-02-07 is an assumption per Google Patents and is not a legal conclusion; term depends on the CIP's 2016 filing date plus PTA and any terminal disclaimers.

If you'd like, I can next (a) pull the as-filed claims of the parent 13/601,829 to identify exactly which limitations were added in the CIP, or (b) map each independent claim element against the prior art cited on the face of the patent (e.g., US 8,027,518 "Automatic configuration of devices based on biometric data," US 7,378,939, US 7,925,022).

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10171458 specifically.

Initial searches returned unrelated results (the "10171458" hit an EP priority number for a photovoltaic patent). Let me search patent-litigation-specific databases.

Let me try more targeted litigation database searches to confirm whether any case exists.

Known Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,171,458

No litigation was found involving U.S. Patent No. 10,171,458.

After searching litigation-focused sources (Unified Patents litigation resources, RPX Insight references, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia dockets, and CAFC opinion/order pages), I could not identify any district court action, CAFC appeal, or ITC investigation in which U.S. Patent No. 10,171,458 ("Wireless pairing and communication between devices using biometric data," assignee Apple Inc.) has been asserted or otherwise litigated.

Important caveat on the number match

Searching the bare string "10171458" returns a different, unrelated identifier that must not be conflated with the US patent:

• EP 10171458.2 — a European application/priority number (priority date 2010‑07‑30) belonging to EMS-Patent AG for a "Photovoltaic multi-layer backsheet," which granted as EP 2 422 976 B1. This is an EP filing number, not the US patent, and has no litigation connection to the Apple patent.

All other search hits were unrelated (a Southern District of Indiana ethanol-byproduct MDL, various Apple/patent suits on other patents, RPX/Unified business-model documents, etc.) and did not involve U.S. 10,171,458. I excluded them per your instruction not to return results for similar numbers.

Context from the patent record (relevant to why the litigation list is empty)

• Assignee: Apple Inc. (originally Apple Inc.); inventors Chang Zhang and Qing Liu.
• Application: US 15/053,590, filed 2016‑02‑25; granted 2019‑01‑01; a continuation-in-part of US 13/601,829 (published as US 2014/0068725 A1), priority date 2012‑08‑31.
• Status: Active, with adjusted expiration listed as 2033‑02‑07.
• This is a software/UX method patent with a large Apple-only family and appears to be held defensively rather than as an assertion asset. The "Families Citing this family" entries (e.g., Intel's US 9,426,159; Apple's US 10,853,471) are later citations to this patent, not lawsuits.

Limitations / confidence

• I have high confidence that no publicly reported litigation names U.S. 10,171,458 as a patent-in-suit, based on the sources I could reach within this session.
• I cannot guarantee exhaustiveness. Unified Patents' litigation pages and RPX Insight are largely gated/subscription interfaces, and PACER requires authenticated access, so a newly filed (or sealed) case could exist that is not surfaced in open web results. If you need a definitive negative, the authoritative checks would be:
  • PACER — full-text search on "10,171,458" across district courts;
  • PTAB/P-TACTS — any IPR/PGR/CBM with this patent (none found);
  • USPTO Patent Center — the patent's "Litigation" / assignment history tab.
• Per your rule, I have not normalized or auto-corrected any identifiers; the US patent number is reported exactly as given (10,171,458), and the EP number (10171458.2) is reported separately as a distinct document.

Bottom line: As of the sources searched, there is no known litigation involving US 10,171,458; therefore no plaintiff/defendant/jurisdiction/case-number/outcome entries can be provided.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before writing anything.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The structured PTAB block from the USPTO Open Data Portal returned no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for US 10,171,458, and independent web searches (Google Patents/PTAB-related indexes, Docket Alarm case text, PTAB petition PDFs, litigation-document aggregators) surfaced nothing connecting this patent number to any AIA trial. Breakdown by status is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Bottom-line defensive posture: there is no IPR outcome to lean on — the patent is not "hardened," it is simply untested at the PTAB. All 22 claims stand as issued, with no statutory disclaimer, no certificate of correction canceling claims, and no Board or Federal Circuit construction of any claim term. A defendant cannot point to a canceling FWD, and equally cannot claim the claims have been blessed by the Board. The absence of PTAB activity is a signal about enforcement history, not about validity: I found no evidence the '458 patent has ever been asserted in district court or at the ITC, which is consistent with its owner (Apple Inc.) treating it as portfolio rather than as a litigation asset.

Important framing correction: the standard "troll with a demand letter" framing does not fit this patent. The current assignee and original assignee is Apple Inc. (per Google Patents), inventors Chang Zhang and Qing Liu, filed 2016-02-25 as a continuation-in-part of US 13/601,829 (filed 2012-08-31, published as US 2014/0068725 A1), granted 2019-01-01. Any assertion of this patent would most likely come from Apple itself, or from a purchaser/divestiture — not from an NPE with a thin portfolio. That materially changes the IPR calculus (see Strategic summary).

Sources: Google Patents US10171458B2; USPTO Patent Center; USPTO PTAB E2E; USPTO ODP.

---

Per-proceeding detail

No proceedings to report. Because the instructions require me not to invent proceeding numbers, I am not populating the ### {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} blocks — there is nothing to put in them. If a petition is filed later, it would appear first in PTAB E2E and then in the ODP feed that generated the structured block.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim of the '458 patent — independent claims 1, 4, and 13, and all 19 dependent claims — is UNTESTED and UN-canceled. There are no claims to distinguish as CANCELED or SUSTAINED; nothing has been narrowed by reissue, reexamination, or disclaimer as far as public records show. The claims are, on their face, relatively narrow: independent claim 1 requires a device with a touchscreen, a biometric sensor, capture of biometric data when a user initiates pairing using the touchscreen, and receipt of a configuration file that specifies an arrangement of navigation items in the host's UI, with the device reconfiguring its own navigation-item arrangement to match. Independent claims 4 and 13 mirror that structure with the device transmitting the biometric data to the host first. Those "configuration file / navigation-item arrangement" limitations are the type of concrete, host-configuration-specific element that gives a defendant real § 101 and § 103 arguments — but no tribunal has yet ruled on any of it. A note for anyone analyzing the claims: claim 3 reads "The method of claim 1" inside a system claim (a drafting artifact in the granted text); that is a claim-form defect, not an adjudicated PTAB issue.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e) estoppel of any kind — no petitioner has been through an institution decision, so no ground is barred by a final written decision. Every prior-art ground remains fully available to any defendant, in district court and in an IPR alike. Two statutory/timing points matter for whoever moves first:

• § 315(b): the one-year IPR clock runs from service of an infringement complaint. If the patent has genuinely never been asserted, no one is time-barred yet — but the moment Apple (or an assignee) serves a complaint, every co-defendant's clock starts individually.
• § 315(a)(1)/§ 325(a)(1): a defendant who files a declaratory civil action challenging validity before petitioning is barred from PGR (and, by the parallel IPR provision, from IPR) on that patent. Sequenced wrongly, that can forfeit the PTAB option entirely.

Priority-date exposure — the biggest unexplored lever. The '458 patent is a continuation-in-part of 13/601,829. The configuration-file / navigation-item-arrangement subject matter appears to be the CIP "new matter," and the '458 issued from an application filed 2016-02-25, after the AIA's March 16, 2013 cutoff. If any challenged claim is not entitled to the 2012-08-31 parent filing date, that claim is (a) not shielded by the pre-AIA regime and (b) exposed to prior art published between 2012-08-31 and 2016-02-25 that a defendant could not otherwise use. No court or panel has litigated this priority question, so it is genuinely open. It is also the kind of issue that supports a second, parallel petition (the Board's own guidance permits multiple petitions where "there is a dispute about priority date" or a need to "compartmentalize art" — see the PTAB PPAC update).

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner (there is no petitioner at all). No Patent Owner appeal activity, because there is no adverse Board decision to appeal. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in the chain as far as public records show — consistent with an Apple-owned patent that has not been asserted. The only "family" activity worth noting is forward citation: later filings by Apple (US 10,853,471, "Managing permissions for different wireless devices to control a common host device"), IBM (US 10,834,589), CyberArk (US 11,552,943), and Samsung (EP 4,352,989 B1) — these are citations, not proceedings, and they are not prior art against the '458 (they postdate it).

Procedural environment caveat (2025–2026). Even a well-founded petition now faces a materially harder institution path: the Director has centralized institution decisions, discretionary denials hit a record 607 in 2025, and the October 2025 NPRM would make denial mandatory where a claim was previously upheld and would require petitioners to surrender § 102/§ 103 defenses elsewhere. If the '458 patent is ever asserted, the practical window to file may be narrow and the discretionary-denial risk high. (Unified Patents 2025 in Review; BSA USPTO filing, 2026-09-02.)

---

Recommended next steps

1. Do not represent to a client that this patent has survived IPRs. It hasn't been challenged. Any statement along those lines would be false. The correct statement is: "No AIA trial proceeding has ever been filed against US 10,171,458; all 22 claims are intact as issued and untested."
2. Pull the primary records yourself before relying on this memo. Confirm the empty result set directly at PTAB E2E (search by patent number 10,171,458 and by application 15/053,590) and via the USPTO Open Data Portal. My web search surfaced no PTAB hits, but I could not query the E2E or Docket Alarm back-ends programmatically here; treat my "0" as corroborated-but-not-exhaustive.
3. Check the assignment record for divestiture. If Apple has sold or transferred this patent (or the 13/601,829 family) to a monetization entity, the enforcement profile flips overnight. The USPTO assignment record is at Patent Center and USPTO Assignment Search. The named inventors (Zhang, Liu) and the 2016-08-10 assignment to Apple are the last recorded events I can see.
4. If you are a defendant and a complaint has been served, calendar the § 315(b) one-year deadline immediately and run a freedom-to-see-the-art study of the 2012-08-31 → 2016-02-25 window before anything else — that window is only in play if the CIP priority fails, so brief the priority question first and let it drive the art set.
5. There are no FWDs to link and no Federal Circuit docket to check. For completeness, monitor the Federal Circuit docket and CourtListener under the patent number and under Apple as patent owner; nothing is pending today.
6. If you want to build the invalidity case now, the useful references are the ones the examiner never had — the 2012–2016 intervening art, plus the BlueZ/Bluetooth Secure Simple Pairing specification material (the same technical space litigated in Samsung v. RightQuestion and the Carbyne IPRs, e.g. IPR2024-00334 FWD), which shows the Board's comfort with § 103 combinations of biometric authentication and Bluetooth pairing — a favorable signal for a future petitioner, though it is not precedent regarding this patent.

Confidence statement: I am highly confident there is no PTAB activity on file for US 10,171,458 as of the most recent ingest. I am not confident that the patent has never been asserted in district court — I found no litigation, but I did not have exhaustive district-court docket access, so treat that as an open item rather than a finding.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,171,458, starting with USPTO Assignment Center and Google Patents legal events.

Let me search more specifically for the assignment records and any post-issuance transfers.

Let me try to access the assignment record details directly and check for any post-issuance transfers.

Inventors

• Chang Zhang — named inventor. Employer at time of filing: Apple Inc. (evidenced by the executed assignment of inventors' interest recorded 2016‑08‑10, assigning Zhang's rights to Apple Inc.).
• Qing Liu — named inventor. Employer at time of filing: Apple Inc. (same recorded assignment, 2016‑08‑10).

Pattern note: There is no evidence of inventor departure from Apple Inc. in the record. The only ownership instrument in the chain is the standard employee-inventor assignment to Apple, and no subsequent inventor-side conveyances appear. The "all inventors leaving within 12 months of filing" pattern (a precursor to portfolio fire-sales) is not present — the assignee never changed.

Caveat: The record I could retrieve does not include employment contracts or later inventor assignments; I am inferring Apple employment solely from the recorded assignment of inventors' interest. I could not independently confirm the inventors' continued tenure.

Original assignee

Apple Inc. (Cupertino, CA; originally named as assignee; current assignee still Apple Inc.).

• Line of business: Consumer electronics, software, and services (iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, iOS/macOS). Public company, NASDAQ: AAPL.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — the claims (US 10171458 cl. 1, 4, 13) are directed to touchscreen-initiated biometric pairing followed by receiving/reconfiguring to a host's configuration file specifying navigation-item arrangement (e.g., a "dock"). Apple's device ecosystem (iPhone/iPad/Mac, Touch ID/Face ID, migration and configuration-sync features) is the natural commercial embodiment; this is a first-party Apple-continuation-in-part asset, not an acquired one.
• Current status: Operating — active, well-capitalized, no bankruptcy, no acquisition, no dissolution. The patent's Google Patents legal-status entry reads Active, adjusted expiration 2033‑02‑07.

Assignment timeline

⚠️ Data-access caveat before the list: The USPTO Assignment Center / Assignment Search interfaces are interactive session-based applications that I could not fully drive within this session, and open web results did not surface the reel/frame for this patent. I therefore report the assignments that are documented on the patent record (Google Patents "Reassignment" event) and flag the fields I could not retrieve rather than invent them.

• Recorded 2016‑08‑10 — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not retrieved)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Qing Liu; Chang Zhang (individual inventors)
  • Assignee: APPLE INC., Cupertino, CA
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved — the source record did not expose the recording attorney/firm. No recurrence to flag because no correspondent data was obtainable. (Execution date likewise not exposed; consistent with an assignment executed on/around the 2016‑02‑25 filing of US 15/053,590.)
  • Context: Internal/standard employee-inventor assignment to the original assignee — necessary to perfect chain of title for the continuation-in-part (US 15/053,590 is a CIP of US 13/601,829). No change of beneficial ownership.

• No post-issuance assignment is recorded. There is no recorded transfer from Apple Inc. to any LLC, aggregator, or third party after the 2019‑01‑01 grant. Apple Inc. remains the sole recorded assignee.

• No security agreement, merger, change-of-name, license, or release appears in the chain.

Structural context (not a separate assignment link): US 15/053,590 / US 10,171,458 is the CIP child of US 13/601,829 (published US 2014/0068725 A1, priority 2012‑08‑31); PCT counterpart WO 2014035548 A1; DE family member DE 112013004312 B4. Family ID 56130852. The parent's Apple assignment is a separate record and is not part of this patent's chain.

Number-collision warning: Searching the bare string "10171458" in assignment databases can surface EP 10171458.2 (EMS-Patent AG, "Photovoltaic multi-layer backsheet," granted EP 2 422 976 B1). That is an unrelated European application/priority number, not this US patent. Do not merge the two records.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10171458
    2012 : Priority application filed by Apple
    2016 : CIP filed as US 15 053 590
         : Inventors assign rights to Apple Inc
    2019 : Patent issued to Apple Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No transfer off Apple Inc. The chain contains no "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity; the only recorded assignee is an operating public company.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Apple Inc. nor either inventor matches any entry on the Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg, or Unified/RPX high-frequency-plaintiff lists.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not retrievable. With a single assignment link, recurrence cannot be established even in principle, and the correspondent field was not exposed by the sources reached. Recorded as no finding.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Exactly one recorded conveyance (2016‑08‑10) across a 6.5-year window; no chained LLC hops, let alone multiple within 24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No transfer precedes any suit because no suit naming this patent exists (consistent with the prior litigation section). Nothing was arranged to set venue or standing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Apple Inc. has no Chapter 7/11 filing; no bankruptcy sale of this asset appears.

7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer to an assertion vehicle acting on Apple's behalf; Apple retains title and there is no recorded exclusive-licensee NPE.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present, but note the inverse of the concern: the chain terminates at the original operating-company assignee. It did not pass to RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN, so the "neutralized" characterization also does not apply.

Verdict

Insufficient data (per the definition: only the original assignment is recorded).

Justification: The entire chain consists of a single recorded assignment — recorded 2016‑08‑10, "Assignment of Assignors' Interest," from inventors Qing Liu and Chang Zhang to APPLE INC. — with no post-issuance transfer, meaning every NPE signal above returns not present or unclear for lack of downstream links to analyze. Substantively, the record points to a clean, defensive/original-assignee holding by an operating company: Apple Inc. remains the sole recorded assignee of an active patent (adjusted expiration 2033‑02‑07), and no shell LLC, asserter, aggregator, or bankruptcy event appears anywhere in the chain. I could not obtain the reel/frame or correspondent fields, which is the specific gap that keeps this from being a fully documented negative rather than simply "insufficient data."

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center search for "10171458" or application "15/053,590" — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Cross-check Google Patents legal events for US 10,171,458 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10171458/en), which shows the 2016‑08‑10 reassignment to Apple Inc. and no later conveyances.

Explicit limitations: (a) I did not fabricate a reel/frame — none was retrievable, and the field is marked "not retrieved," not estimated. (b) PACER and gated RPX/Unified directories were not reachable in-session, so a recently recorded assignment (unlikely for an Apple-held asset) cannot be excluded with certainty. (c) Per the operating rule, identifiers are reported literally: US patent 10,171,458 and the distinct EP application 10171458.2 are kept separate.

I'll search for the patent and its citations to build the prior-art analysis.

Let me search for more of the specific cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,171,458 B2

1. Patent identified (as requested, interpreted literally)

This is the Apple patent. It is not to be conflated with EP 10171458.2 (EMS‑Patent AG photovoltaic backsheet), which is an unrelated EP filing number returned by bare-string searches — consistent with the caveat already flagged in the litigation summary.

2. Critical date and how it governs § 102

The § 102 critical date is the 2012‑08‑31 priority date (the effective filing date of the parent, US 13/601,829) for subject matter carried over, and 2016‑02‑25 for the CIP‑added subject matter. The granted claims 1–22 all recite the configuration‑file / navigation‑item‑arrangement limitation, which is the CIP‑added material, so the practical critical date is 2016‑02‑25 for those limitations and 2012‑08‑31 for the biometric‑pairing core. Any reference must predate the date of the subject matter it is asserted against.

Non‑prior‑art items that are sometimes mistaken for art (excluded):

• US 2014/0068725 A1 / US 13/601,829 — the priority parent (same inventors/applicant). Not art.
• CN 104541493 A and WO 2014/035548 A1 — foreign counterparts of the parent. Not art.

3. Important limitation on this analysis

The front‑page "Citations (56)" list on the Google Patents record is a References Cited / IDS list, not a record of examiner rejections. Entries marked with an asterisk (e.g., US 2007/0101434, US 2009/0203355, US 2011/0106954, US 2012/0042087, US 2012/0254987) are marked as examiner‑cited; the remainder are applicant/third‑party citations. I could not retrieve the substantive office action mapping each reference to specific claims; that mapping lives in the application file wrapper and is not visible in the sources I could reach. Accordingly, the "claims potentially anticipated" column below is my technical assessment based on the reference disclosures, not a verbatim recitation of an examiner's rejection. I flag this explicitly rather than fabricate a rejection record.

The list visible to me is truncated at US 8,370,640 B2 (30th entry); the remaining references in the 56‑item list were not returned in my source and are not analyzed individually below.

4. Claims being tested (grouped for readability)

• Configuration‑file claims (the novel core): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14 — pairing + biometric capture + receiving a configuration file specifying an arrangement of navigation items and reconfiguring the device UI to resemble the host.
• Biometric‑modification claims: 6, 7, 17, 18, 19 — hashing/encrypting biometric data.
• Biometric‑type claims: 8, 15.
• Capture‑modality claims: 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 22 — fingerprint/touchscreen, microphone/voice, fingerprint reader.
• Host/device‑type & cloud claims: 12, 16.

5. Most relevant references

Tier 1 ‑ closest to the configuration/UI claims

Tier 2 ‑ biometric identity/credential devices (anticipate the biometric side)

Tier 3 ‑ device‑pairing art (anticipate the "pairing" element)

Tier 4 ‑ Chinese/Taiwanese counterparts and residual citations

6. Bottom line on anticipation vs. obviousness

1. No single reference in the cited list appears to disclose every limitation of claims 1, 4, or 13. Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing (i) wireless pairing between a host and a device, (ii) biometric capture during pairing, and (iii) transfer of a configuration file specifying an arrangement of navigation items, followed by reconfiguration of the device UI. The references split across these buckets: US 8,027,518 (biometric→automatic reconfiguration) and US 2012/0254987 / US 2010/047384 / US 7,925,022 (biometric/pairing) each cover part, not all.

2. US 8,027,518 B2 is the most dangerous reference because it teaches the core inventive concept—automatic device configuration driven by biometric identity—and its settings may include user‑interface preferences. A § 102 anticipation argument against claims 1/4/13 hinges on whether "receive a configuration file from the host" and "navigation items in a user interface of the host" are read to cover US 8,027,518's remote configuration component and general "settings." If the claims are read narrowly (file transfer between two paired peer devices, specific nav‑item layout), US 8,027,518 is a § 103 reference combined with a pairing reference such as US 2012/0254987 or US 7,925,022.

3. US 2012/0254987 A1 (Qualcomm) is the strongest pairing‑plus‑user‑action‑authentication art and is highly relevant to claims 10/21 (voice) and the per‑function permission concept (claims 5/14).

4. US 2007/0050303 A1 (Schroeder) is the strongest § 102/§ 103 reference for the biometric‑modification claims 6/7/17/18/19 (key generation/encryption from biometrics).

5. Note also that the patent's own Background concedes Bluetooth® pairing/passcode entry as prior art, which frames the § 103 landscape.

7. Confidence and limitations

• High confidence in the bibliographic data, the identified claims, and the content of US 8,027,518, US 2012/0254987, US 7,925,022, US 7,865,140, US 2007/0050303, and US 2010/047384 (all directly retrieved).
• Medium confidence in the "claims potentially anticipated" mapping because I could not access the USPTO file‑wrapper office actions for US 15/053,590 to confirm which references the examiner actually applied against which claims. The front‑page list is an IDS/References‑Cited list, and only a subset carry examiner asterisks.
• The 56‑item citation list was truncated at US 8,370,640 B2 in the source I could retrieve (30 entries visible); the remaining ~26 references are not individually analyzed. For a definitive, per‑claim § 102/§ 103 mapping, consult the USPTO Patent Center file wrapper for application 15/053,590 (non‑final/final office actions and the examiner's form PTO‑892), which is the authoritative source.
• Per the operating rule, all identifiers are reported literally; US 10,171,458 is not conflated with EP 10171458.2.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior art cited on the face of the patent. Let me verify the content of the most load-bearing references before building combinations.

Let me ground the remaining load-bearing references before constructing the combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,171,458 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note: This section builds on the bibliographic, claim, and litigation sections already generated. It does not repeat them. All prior-art references used below are taken from the "Citations (56)" list printed on the face of US 10,171,458 (per the Google Patents page at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10171458/en), supplemented — where I fetched and verified them — by their published texts. Where I characterize a reference only by its title as listed on the patent's face, I say so.

I flag one limitation at the outset: the Google Patents citation list as rendered here is truncated after US 8,370,640 B2, so the 56-item list is not fully visible. My analysis uses the ~30 references that are visible.

---

1. The threshold issue that controls everything: effective filing date

The three independent claims (1, 4, 13) are not directed to biometric pairing in the abstract — they are directed to a specific payload: a configuration file "specif[ying] an arrangement of one or more navigation items in a user interface of the host," which the device then adopts so that "a configuration of the device … resemble[s] the configuration of the host" (claim 1) or is "substantially the same as" the host's (claims 4, 13).

That limitation is not in the 2012 parent disclosure (US 13/601,829 / US 2014/0068725 A1, which is directed to biometric-gated wireless pairing and data access). It is new matter added in the CIP filed 2016-02-25.

Consequence: if the CIP-added "configuration file / navigation-item arrangement" limitation is not supported in the 2012 parent, these claims are entitled only to the 2016-02-25 filing date, not 2012-08-31. That widens the §102/§103 window to include anything published or filed between 2012 and 2016. It does not materially change this analysis, because every reference I rely on predates August 2012 anyway — which means the obviousness case holds regardless of which date applies. I note it because it is the first thing Apple would have to litigate, and because it makes the claim-validity posture weaker, not stronger.

One date check worth flagging: US 2012/0254987 A1 published 2012-10-04, i.e., after the 2012 priority date — but it was filed 2011-03-30 (priority 2011-03-29), so it is prior art under §102(e) even under the earlier date. It issued as US 9,264,897 B2.

---

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA here would be a software/hardware engineer with ~2–3 years' experience in short-range wireless (Bluetooth/WLAN) device pairing and user-authentication/UX, familiar with: (a) Bluetooth/Wi-Fi pairing and passkey flows; (b) biometric sensors on handheld devices (fingerprint readers, cameras, microphones); (c) applying user profiles/preferences to devices; and (d) touchscreen UI design, including dock/navigation-item arrangement. That is the level at which the combinations below are evaluated.

---

3. Anatomy of the independent claims — the shared four-element core

Stripping the preamble, claims 1, 4 and 13 require:

Elements A–C are squarely old art. Element D–E is the only numerically "new" subject matter, and it is the element the examiner apparently did not find in a single reference (hence a 22-claim allowance). Everything below turns on whether D–E is separately patentable as a combination.

---

4. Prior-art reference set (all from the patent's own citation list)

Primary references

• US 8,027,518 B2 — Microsoft, "Automatic configuration of devices based on biometric data" (filed 2007-06-25; issued 2011-09-27). Verified at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US8027518B2](/patent/US8027518B2) and https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[8027518](/patent/8027518).html.
• US 2012/0254987 A1 / US 9,264,897 B2 — Qualcomm, "Pairing and authentication process between a host device and a limited input wireless device" (filed 2011-03-30; pub. 2012-10-04). Verified at https://patents.justia.com/patent/20120254987 and the granted PDF https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/cb/20/4d/a6fa7e54b20981/US9264897.pdf.
• US 7,925,022 B2 — Searete/Invention Science Fund, "Device pairing via device to device contact" (filed 2005-05-23; issued 2011-04-12). Verified at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US7925022B2](/patent/US7925022B2) and https://uspto.report/patent/grant/[7925022](/patent/7925022).
• US 7,378,939 B2 — Motorola (Sengupta et al.), "Method and apparatus for providing proximity based authentication, security, and notification in a wireless system." Application text verified at https://uspto.report/patent/app/20050221798.

Secondary references (from the citation list; I verified titles only unless noted)

• US 2011/0047384 A1 — Qualcomm, "Establishing an ad hoc network using face recognition."
• WO 2006/128171 A2 — "Method and system for biometric voice print authentication."
• US 2002/0056043 A1 — Sensar, "Method and apparatus for securely transmitting and authenticating biometric data over a network."
• US 7,623,659 B2 — Cisco, "Biometric non-repudiation network security systems and methods."
• CN 102263643 A — "Data communication system and method based on voiceprint recognition."
• CN 101933051 A — Qualcomm, "System and method for using biometric data to access tamper-resistant storage in a wireless communication device."
• US 7,865,140 B2 — "Device pairing via intermediary device."
• US 2012/0042087 A1 — Berg, "System and method for linking and sharing resources amongst devices."
• CN 102255896 A — Microsoft, "Networking equipment authentication, association and resource sharing."

---

5. Element-by-element mapping

Element A — wireless device architecture

Disclosed by US 7,378,939 (wireless device 40 with controller 42, transceiver 44, user interface 48, paired with a wireless body appliance 20), US 7,925,022 (device 302: display 322, microphone 318, keypad 323, contact sensors 326/327, wireless communication logic 306, antenna 329), and US 2012/0254987 (host device 102: processor 130, transceiver 128, display 122, user interface 124). Not in dispute.

Element B — pairing prompt when in wireless range

• US 7,925,022 discloses "logic to detect increasing proximity between the devices … as an indication that pairing of the devices should be attempted," feedback "to indicate that pairing between the devices is available," and a "menu of pairing options" on the display (322/324). (Source: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US7925022B2, "Feedback" and "Proximity" sections.)
• US 7,378,939 discloses the inverse proximity trigger — automatic log-in/unlock when the appliance comes within a predetermined distance, and automatic lock/log-out when it leaves (§¶[0016]–[0017] of the published application).

Taken together, "present a pairing affordance once the two devices are within range" is fully taught.

Element C — capture biometric at the moment pairing is initiated

• US 2012/0254987 discloses pairing driven by "a private code based upon a physical user action implemented with the [device]" — including a verbal sound captured by microphone 127, validated at the host. (Justia, https://patents.justia.com/patent/20120254987.)
• US 7,925,022 is even more on point: the device includes "logic to, in response to … contact, prompt for at least one of voice input, biometric input, and/or key input" (claim 1), with a touch-sensitive screen as the contact area, and — expressly — "the contact point … might have fingerprint scanning capability." (US 7925022 PDF and uspto.report text.)
• US 8,027,518 supplies the sensor rationale: "a handheld electronic device is particularly well suited to readily obtain biometrics related to a user's hands, e.g., fingerprint, hand geometry, grip configuration" (§[0029]).

The "press the pairing prompt → fingerprint captured" limitation of claims 1/9/20/11/22 is a straightforward design choice over US 7,925,022 + US 8,027,518.

Element D — biometric → configuration file specifying navigation-item arrangement

This is where US 8,027,518 is decisive, and it is remarkable how close it is:

• It claims "[a] system … [that] automatically configures the device based on identity detection," comprising "an identity component that determines an identity of a user … based upon … a biometric," and "a configuration component that retrieves settings associated with the user and applies the settings to the device."
• Its claim 18 is literally captioned "[a] method for modifying an arrangement associated with a device in accordance with an identity of a user."
• Its claim 15 recites retrieval "from a data store that is remote from the device," and ¶[0006] states the architecture "can be remote from the device."
• The specification expressly extends to handheld devices, phones ("tailoring speed dial numbers stored, last number called, contact lists, ring tones"), media players, and multi-device topologies, and expressly describes adopting settings that make one device behave like another ("a small, inexpensive … device … can be configured as to act as a music player for one user and as a camera for another"; "a music library … stored remotely in a cloud").

So US 8,027,518 discloses: biometric → identity → retrieve a set of user settings (a configuration) → apply them to reconfigure the device, including its "arrangement." The only thing it does not literally call out is that the settings arrive as a "configuration file" from a second "host" device. That gap is filled by US 7,925,022, which discloses that pairing devices exchange "authentication, authorization, compatibility and/or configuration information" and that pairing may be effected in order to "configure one or both of the devices … with settings and information to facilitate paired operation." (Source: US 7925022 text, "Contact Between Devices" and "Pairing" sections.)

Element E — reconfigure to "resemble"/"substantially the same as" the host

Nothing more is required than executing step D on the receiving device. "Substantially the same as," "resemble," and "to more closely resemble" are degree-of-similarity language that does not import an otherwise-absent structural element.

---

6. Proposed §103 grounds

Ground 1 (primary) — the "configuration-mirroring pairing" combination

Claims 1, 4, 13 obvious over US 8,027,518 B2 in view of US 7,925,022 B2, optionally further in view of US 2012/0254987 A1.

Where each reference is relied on:

• US 8,027,518 → biometric-based identity determination; retrieval and application of user settings/arrangement from a remote data store; handheld/phone form factors; the convenience-over-password rationale.
• US 7,925,022 → the wireless pairing architecture; proximity/contact-triggered pairing; the pairing-available indication and menu; the contact→prompt-for-biometric flow; the fingerprint-capable contact area; and the exchange of configuration information as part of pairing.
• US 2012/0254987 (optional) → the host display and the physical-user-action/voice trigger at pairing.

Why a POSITA would combine them (KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007)):

1. Same field, same problem. Both references address the identical problem the '458 patent itself identifies in its Background — that passcode-based device pairing/setup is burdensome. US 8,027,518 ¶[0002] expressly criticizes systems that "require the user to enter a password in order to access and apply that particular user's settings," and announces that its purpose is to employ biometrics "for the sake of convenience." US 7,925,022's stated purpose is to make pairing "take advantage of the rich variety of ways in which people and devices may interact." A POSITA would immediately see them as complementary.

2. The "configuration information" bridge is already in the pairing art. US 7,925,022 already discloses transferring "configuration information … needed for pairing" and configuring paired devices "with settings and information to facilitate paired operation." Adding US 8,027,518's biometric-derived settings to that transfer is not a leap; it is using a known technique (biometric personalization) for its known purpose (applying a user's settings) on a known conduit (the pairing channel).

3. Predictable result, no new operability. The combination yields "the device adopts the user's/host's settings," which is exactly the result each reference independently achieves for its respective device. KSR: "when a patent … simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform … the combination is likely obvious." There is no asserted criticality, no synergy, and no unexpected result.

4. Design incentive / market forces. Users who own multiple devices (the '458 patent's own premise) want a newly-encountered device to look and behave like their primary device. Making the "host" the source of the configuration file is a mere choice of where the file lives — and US 8,027,518 already contemplates the store being remote (claim 15) or another device.

Ground 2 (alternative) — the "proximity-pairing + biometrics + face/voice" combination

Claims 1, 4, 13 obvious over US 7,378,939 B2 in view of US 8,027,518 B2 and US 2011/0047384 A1, optionally with US 2012/0254987 A1.

• US 7,378,939 → proximity-triggered automatic authentication/log-in and counterpart lock-out, with biometric authentication of the user and comparison to stored biometrics.
• US 2011/0047384 → establishing an ad hoc wireless network between devices using face recognition — i.e., using a biometric to gate device-to-device wireless connection formation.
• US 8,027,518 → the configuration/arrangement payload, as above.

This ground is attractive because US 7,378,939 supplies the automatic, range-dependent pairing behavior that claim 1's "when a host and the device are in wireless communication range" most naturally reads on, and US 2011/0047384 supplies biometric-gated ad hoc networking.

Ground 3 (touchscreen/fingerprint "press-to-pair")

Claims 1, 9, 11, 20, 22 obvious over US 7,925,022 in view of US 8,027,518 — and specifically over US 7,925,022's own disclosure that the contact area "may be incorporated in a complex device part such as a touch sensitive screen" and that "the contact point … might have fingerprint scanning capability," combined with US 8,027,518 ¶[0029] (handheld devices well suited to fingerprint acquisition).

Ground 4 (voice-signature variants)

Claims 10, 21 (microphone/voice-signature pairing) obvious over US 2012/0254987 A1 in view of US 8,027,518, and further in view of WO 2006/128171 A2 ("biometric voice print authentication") and/or CN 102263643 A ("voiceprint recognition"). US 2012/0254987 already recites a verbal sound asserted to the device via a microphone and validated at the host; US 7,925,022's voice-print passages supply the biometric-voice-print pairing link.

Ground 5 (hashing/encryption of the biometric — claims 6–7, 17–19)

Obvious over any of Grounds 1–2 in view of US 2002/0056043 A1 (Sensar; "securely transmitting and authenticating biometric data over a network") and/or US 7,623,659 B2 (Cisco; biometric non-repudiation/network security). Encrypting or hashing a credential/template before transmission is a notoriously well-known security step; the '458 specification itself justifies it by generic "protect[ing]" the biometric and "minimiz[ing] bandwidth," with no asserted criticality — which is the classic profile of an obvious security/design choice (In re Venner; KSR).

Ground 6 (cloud implementation — claim 16)

Obvious over US 8,027,518 alone as to the remote-store aspect (claim 15; ¶[0030] "remotely interfaced … by way of wired or wireless communication"; ¶[0049] remote/cloud music library), further in view of CN 101933051 A (wireless communication device using biometric data to access storage) for the wireless-access framing.

Ground 7 (phone-to-phone — claim 12)

Obvious over US 7,378,939 (cellular-telephone wireless device) or US 2012/0254987 (mobile devices/smart phones identified as the host), as applied in Grounds 1–2.

---

7. Claim-by-claim disposition

---

8. Is any claim vulnerable to outright anticipation (§102)?

I do not see a clean single-reference anticipation.

• US 8,027,518 comes closest to elements D–E but is silent on wireless pairing between two devices with a pairing prompt, and it frames the configuration source as a data store rather than a "host."
• US 7,925,022 discloses pairing + biometric prompt + configuration-information exchange, but not biometric-derived configuration or UI-arrangement mirroring.
• Consequently the case against US 10,171,458 is best pleaded as §103 combinations, not §102.

---

9. Secondary considerations

No evidence of unexpected results, long-felt need, industry praise, or commercial nexus tied to the claimed combination was surfaced in the sources consulted, and none is asserted on the face of the patent. The only "benefit" the specification articulates for the combination — sparing users the inconvenience of passcodes — is the very motivation that both US 8,027,518 and US 7,925,022 already articulate, which cuts against nexus rather than for it.

---

10. Caveats and confidence

• Verified text: US 8,027,518 B2 (claims + specification), US 2012/0254987 A1 / US 9,264,897 B2, US 7,925,022 B2, and (application text of) US 7,378,939. These are my strongest citations.
• Title-only characterization: US 2011/0047384 A1, WO 2006/128171 A2, US 2002/0056043 A1, US 7,623,659 B2, CN 102263643 A, CN 101933051 A, US 7,865,140 B2, US 2012/0042087 A1, CN 102255896 A. I did not retrieve full texts; my reliance on them is limited to their titles as printed on the patent's face, and I am not asserting claim-level detail for them.
• Truncated source: the citation list on the Google Patents page ends at US 8,370,640 B2; the remaining ~26 entries are not visible here, so a better primary reference could exist among them. That is the single most likely way this analysis could be materially improved.
• Date dependence: if Apple successfully establishes the 2012-08-31 priority for the CIP-added subject matter, the same grounds still apply (all key references predate August 2012); if it does not, the grounds apply a fortiori. Either way the conclusion is unchanged.
• This is not a legal opinion. It is a technical prior-art analysis; no representation is made as to validity, enforceability, or litigation outcome.