US 10291158

I'll verify the current status and litigation information before summarizing.

Let me check for any CAFC appeal or PTAB proceeding specific to this patent.

US Patent 10,291,158 B2 — Analyst Summary

Data source of record: the Google Patents full text provided in this thread (authoritative), cross-checked against Justia, Unified Patents' portal, and E.D. Tex. docket records. Where sources conflict, I flag it rather than reconcile.

---

1. Bibliographic Data

Assignment chain of note (per Google Patents reassignment entries): General Electric Co → GE Intellectual Property Licensing LLC (2025-03-26) → Dolby Intellectual Property Licensing LLC (2025-03-26, change of name) → Edison Innovations, LLC (2025-02-20 entry) → BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (2026-04-09, QUITCLAIM ASSIGNMENT from Edison Innovations LLC). The ordering of the 2025 entries is as listed on the source page; I report it literally without normalizing.

Family: US 9,800,182 B2 (parent, 14/094,086); US 10,374,529 B2; US 10,673,358 B2; US 11,374,508 B2; CN 103847530 B; EP 2738036 A3; JP 6334147 B2.

Uncertainty note: Google Patents and the Unified Patents portal differ by one day on the filing and grant dates (a time-zone/effective-date artifact). I have not independently confirmed which is the USPTO official record.

---

2. Abstract (as issued)

An electric drive system includes an energy storage system (ESS), a power conversion system, and an alternating current (AC) traction system. The ESS provides or receives electric power. The ESS includes a first energy storage unit and a second energy storage unit. The power conversion system is electrically coupled to the ESS for converting an input power to an output power. The AC traction system is electrically coupled to the power conversion system for converting the output power of the power conversion system to mechanical torques. The AC traction system includes a first AC drive device and a second AC drive device. An energy management system (EMS) is in electrical communication with the ESS, the AC traction system, and the power conversion system for providing control signals.

---

3. Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — Electric drive system for a vehicle. A vehicle drivetrain with: (a) an energy storage system; (b) a power conversion system tied to the ESS; (c) a first AC motor; (d) a second AC motor; (e) a power split device sitting between the two motors and the vehicle's load, built from an arrangement of gears that handles torque supplied by the motors or received from the load; and (f) an EMS that selectively does either of two things:

• Mode A — turn on both motors so jointly they deliver a first mechanical torque through the power split device to drive the vehicle; or
• Mode B — run the first motor as a motor to drive the vehicle via the power split device, while the second motor is switched to operate as a generator, taking a third mechanical torque from the power split device and producing electrical power.

The inventive hook is the EMS's selective re-purposing of the second machine (drive-assist vs. on-board generator) through the same geared power-split architecture.

Claim 15 — Electric drive system for a vehicle (method-of-operation framing). Essentially the same architecture, but recited functionally: an energy storage unit; a power conversion device; a traction system with a first motor/generator and a second motor/generator; a geared power split device between both motor/generators and the vehicle load; and an EMS that in a first mode runs both motor/generators as motors to drive the vehicle, and in a second mode runs the first as a motor and the second as a generator drawing torque from the power split device.

Claim 22 — Electric drive system for a vehicle (transmission-device variant). Adds an explicit transmission device coupled to the first AC motor, with the power split device coupled between the transmission device and the second AC motor. The EMS then in the first mode drives the vehicle with both motors through the transmission device and power split device, and in the second mode drives with the first motor (via the transmission device) while the second motor generates from power-split-device torque.

Representative dependents worth noting: battery + ultracapacitor ESS (cl. 5); separate first/second power conversion devices per storage unit (cl. 6); dedicated first and second inverters (cl. 7, 24); permanent-magnet first motor (cl. 8, 17); induction-machine second motor (cl. 9, 18); generated power routed to the ESS (cl. 10, 19, 25) or to the other motor (cl. 11, 20, 26); EMS also able to run the first machine as a generator (cl. 12, 21, 27).

Drafting quirk flagged (not auto-corrected): claim 23 reads "The electric drive system of claim 14" even though it is positioned after claim 22. Claim 14 is itself a dependent claim ("The electric drive system of claim 1, wherein the ESS comprises an energy storage unit"). The dependency is reported exactly as it appears; whether this was a typographical error is a legal question I cannot resolve from the text alone.

---

4. Litigation Status (as of this search)

• BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al., No. 2:25-cv-01133, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Robert W. Schroeder III; originally referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, referral vacated 04/29/2026). Filed November 18, 2025. US 10,291,158 is among the asserted patents (along with, per Stanford NPE database, 10,374,529; 10,442,296; 10,549,648; 11,374,508; 8,030,884; 8,086,364; 8,326,467; 9,914,365). Toyota answered and counterclaimed (Filing 21, 03/10/2026); Bunker Hill replied to the counterclaim (Filing 25, 03/30/2026); a scheduling conference is set for 06/02/2026. Docket last retrieved by the tracker 05/05/2026.
• Related case: BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. Nissan Motor Co Ltd, No. 2:26-cv-00231, E.D. Tex., filed 2026-03-19, listed as related to 2:25-cv-01133.
• Defensive activity: Unified Patents published a prior-art/invalidity chart against U.S. 10,291,158 (charts released on or about December 18, 2025), and separately obtained an ex parte reexamination grant on Bunker Hill's U.S. 9,914,365 (CRU grant June 1, 2026). I found no PTAB IPR and no ex parte reexamination specific to 10,291,158 in the results returned.

Explicit "not found" statement: I ran targeted searches for a CAFC 2026 docket involving patent 10,291,158 and returned no results. The E.D. Tex. case is still at the scheduling-conference stage, and I found no notice of appeal. This is a negative search result, not affirmative proof that no appeal exists. I also cannot verify the case-by-case infringement theories from the sources available.

---

5. Technical Gist (context for the claims)

The specification sets up the problem as: a single ESS can't simultaneously satisfy energy and power demands (slow charge rate, short life), and a single motor can't be efficient across the whole operating envelope — forcing oversizing. The disclosed fix pairs (i) two dissimilar storage units (e.g., battery as primary, ultracapacitor as transient-power assistant, with a pre-charging switching device 16/105 between them) with (ii) two dissimilar machines (e.g., an induction motor and an interior permanent magnet motor, IM 115 / IPM 117), and lets the EMS pick which combination to run. FIG. 6–10 give the control method: speed-based mode selection (starting, accelerating/uphill, cruising, regenerative/braking, plus a fault-tolerant mode), a torque-distribution unit (fixed-proportion, average/peak split, or efficiency-maximizing via loss minimization P_loss1 + P_loss2 = min), and a battery/ultracapacitor power-sharing state machine. FIGS. 4 and 5 show the parallel and series variants of the power conversion system.

---

6. Confidence and Caveats

• High confidence: title, inventors, application number, priority claim, claim text and structure, abstract, family members — all taken directly from the provided authoritative patent text.
• Medium confidence: issue/filing dates to the exact day (one-day discrepancy between sources); the precise corporate assignment sequence and its chronology.
• Low confidence / unverified: whether any CAFC appeal exists; whether any post-grant challenge to 10,291,158 specifically has been filed (Unified's chart is prior art analysis, not necessarily a filed proceeding); the full list and status of all co-asserted patents.

If you need the day-accurate dates and the complete litigation/PTAB picture, the next step would be pulling the USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper for 15/693,976 and the PTAB/CRU databases directly.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10,291,158.

Let me get more details on the case and check for additional suits or PTAB challenges.

Let me check whether the '158 patent appears in the related Bunker Hill suits against Ford and Nissan.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,291,158 (the "'158 patent")

I searched patent-litigation sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, Justia Dockets/PACER-derived records, and related reporting). The '158 patent is, to my knowledge, currently asserted in exactly one district-court litigation. I found no CAFC appeal, no ITC investigation, and no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) directed to the '158 patent.

1. The one case on point

Sources:

• Stanford NPE Litigation Database case page (lists 10291158 among asserted patents): https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[308840](/patent/308840)
• Justia docket (case activity): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv01133/[241855](/patent/241855)
• Unified Patents litigation entry: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A25-cv-01133
• Google Patents family-litigation notation for US10291158B2: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10291158](/patent/US10291158)/en

Patents asserted in that suit (per the Stanford database): U.S. 10,291,158; 10,374,529; 10,442,296; 10,549,648; 11,374,508; 8,030,884; 8,086,364; 8,326,467; 9,914,365. So the '158 patent is one of a portfolio of nine asserted against Toyota in a single complaint, not the subject of a stand-alone suit.

Accused technology: Toyota's hybrid/electric vehicle systems, with the complaint focusing on the powertrain — Toyota's "Hybrid Synergy Drive" arrangement using two motor-generators (MG1/MG2), a power control unit, a planetary gear set (i.e., a "power split device"), and control logic for driving, charging and regeneration. (Complaint analysis at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-01133/doc/1)

Procedural history (as reflected in the docket):

• Nov 18, 2025 — Complaint filed.
• Dec 1, 2025 — Notice of appearance for Bunker Hill (Thomas W. Kennedy, Jr.).
• Dec 10–17, 2025 — Toyota's unopposed motion for extension of time to answer; granted by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
• Mar 10, 2026 — Toyota entities filed their Answer and counterclaims against Bunker Hill (and Rule 7.1 disclosure statements); multiple Toyota-side attorney appearances followed Mar 10–11, 2026 (including pro hac vice).
• Mar 30, 2026 — Bunker Hill filed its Answer to the Toyota counterclaims.
• Apr 29–30, 2026 — Order vacating the referral to the magistrate judge.
• May 5, 2026 — Order setting a scheduling conference for June 2, 2026 before Judge Schroeder.

Outcome: None yet — the case remains in its early pleading/scheduling phase. No claim construction, summary judgment, trial, or settlement has been reported.

2. Related/adjacent matters that should NOT be confused with '158 litigation

Because the instruction is to avoid returning similar-number results, I want to be explicit about what I excluded and why, and flag the distinction:

• Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:25-cv-01116 (E.D. Tex., filed Nov. 10, 2025) — same plaintiff and same court, but the complaint analysis I reviewed identifies the asserted patents as the '857, '582, '884, '365, '023, '439 and '121 patents. The '158 patent does not appear in the materials I reviewed for the Ford case. PACER-derived records indicate that case was terminated around February 11, 2026 (flagged "Closed").
  • https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[308742](/patent/308742)
  • https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61108837/BUNKER_HILL_TECHNOLOGIES,_LLC_v_Ford_Motor_Company
• Bunker Hill v. Nissan (E.D. Tex., No. 2:26-cv-00230) — a later Bunker Hill complaint asserting the '884, '582, '121, '365, '439 and '023 patents. The '158 patent is not among the patents listed in the complaint text I retrieved.
• Unified Patents invalidity chart for US-10291158 (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/s/BunkerHill_US10291158_invalidity-chart.pdf) — this is a defensive prior-art publication by Unified Patents, not a lawsuit. It charts U.S. Pub. Nos. 2011/0227534, 2010/0222953, 2012/0004073 and 2004/0043856 against the claims. Note that Unified's filed reexamination challenge was against the '365 patent (ex parte reexam granted June 1, 2026), not the '158 patent. So a PTAB/CRU challenge to '158 may be contemplated but I found none on file.

3. Caveats and confidence

• Confidence: high that the Toyota case (2:25-cv-01133) is the only litigation asserting the '158 patent. Multiple independent databases (Stanford NPE, Unified Patents, Justia) converge on this.
• Timing anomaly to flag: the user-stated current date is April 26, 2026, but the Justia docket page I retrieved carries a "last retrieved on May 5, 2026" stamp and contains entries dated April 29–30 and May 5, 2026. If the true date is April 26, 2026, those later docket entries should be treated as unverified; if later, they are current. I am reporting what the retrieved record shows rather than silently resolving the conflict.
• CAFC/PACER: I found no Federal Circuit appeal and no separate PACER docket for the '158 patent beyond E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-01133. I cannot rule out a very recently filed appeal or an unindexed PTAB petition, since those dockets can lag public databases.
• Ownership note (relevant to standing/real-party-in-interest): the Google Patents assignment history shows the '158 patent moved GE → GE Intellectual Property Licensing → Dolby Intellectual Property Licensing → Edison Innovations → Bunker Hill Technologies (quitclaim, Apr. 9, 2026). Whether Bunker Hill held all substantial rights at the Nov. 18, 2025 filing date is a factual question I cannot resolve from the sources retrieved.

PTAB Proceedings Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,291,158 B2

Patent: US 10,291,158 B2 ("Electric drive system and energy management method")
Owner of record: Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC (an entity of Dominion Harbor Enterprises) — acquired 2026-04-09 via quitclaim from Edison Innovations LLC; original assignee General Electric Co.
Priority date: 2012-12-03 · Anticipated expiration: 2033-12-02
Analysis date: 2026-09-30

---

Proceedings overview

Total PTAB AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,291,158: ZERO. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving this patent, and targeted web searching surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, termination, or Federal Circuit appeal directed at the '158 patent. The breakdown is therefore N/A across every status category (0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied).

Bottom line for a defendant: There is no PTAB estoppel cushion and no canceled-claim shield — because nobody has yet challenged this patent at the Board. All 28 claims (independents 1, 15, 22 and their dependents) are UNTESTED in an AIA trial. That cuts both ways: the patent has not been hardened, but neither has it been weakened, and a defendant cannot point to any FWD to defeat an infringement theory. The '158 patent is, however, squarely inside an active NPE campaign and its family siblings are already under Toyota IPR attack — see the adjacent-proceedings section below, which is where the real defensive signal lies.

⚠️ Do not confuse this patent with same-numbered patents in other proceedings. Several press and docket items reference numbers that look close but are different patents: Unified Patents v. Motion Offense, LLC, IPR2020-00705, is on U.S. Patent 10,013,158 (not 10,291,158), and Corning Gilbert's IPR2013-00345 is on U.S. Patent 8,313,353. No AIA trial has ever been filed against 10,291,158.

---

Proceedings on this patent (US 10,291,158)

None. There is no proceeding to report. Consistent with the instruction that the structured ODP block is canonical, the correct answer is no PTAB activity on file for this patent as of 2026-09-30. Web search did not contradict that default; it returned only proceedings against other patents.

---

Adjacent proceedings that are NOT against this patent (cautionary / signal only)

These matter strategically but must not be cited as proceedings on the '158 patent. The '158 patent is one of five U.S. applications in the same GE-origin family (US 9,800,182; US 10,374,529; US 10,291,158; US 10,673,358; US 11,374,508), all sharing the 2012-12-03 priority date and all now tied to the Bunker Hill / Dominion Harbor monetization program.

Why the Toyota/Sibling filings matter for '158: Toyota's IPR2026-00333 shows the family's core disclosure (dual-motor + power-split + EMS mode control) is being attacked with pre-2012/2014 art (notably Tsuzuki, JP Publication 2010-036880, and US 2011/0227534 A1) — the same art families that appear in Unified Patents' published prior-art chart against the '158 patent itself (US 2011/0227534 A1; US 2010/0222953 A1; US 2012/0004073 A1; US 2004/0043856 A1). Sources: Unified Patents insights, "More Bunker Hill EV patents prior art found" (2025-12-12) and the "...Bunker Hill, EV patent prior art found" post (2025-10-22); Toyota's '508 grounds summarized at IPR2026-00333.

Litigation context (not PTAB): Bunker Hill has asserted the '158 patent in E.D. Tex. against Toyota in 2:25-cv-01133 (filed 2025-11-18; patents-in-suit include 10,291,158, 10,374,529, 10,442,296, 10,549,648, 11,374,508, 8,030,884, 8,086,364, 8,326,467, 9,914,365). Related Bunker Hill suits: 2:25-cv-01116 (Ford — joint dismissal 2026-02-11 after a notice of settlement and stay on 2026-01-14), 2:26-cv-00231 (Nissan, filed 2026-03-19/20), and 2:26-cv-00742 (Volvo/Polestar, filed 2026-04-24). Sources: Stanford NPE Database case 308840; PacerMonitor Ford docket.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 10,291,158. Canceled: none. Sustained/confirmed in an AIA trial: none (nothing has been tested). Untested: all 28 issued claims — independent claims 1, 15, and 22, plus dependent claims 2–14, 16–21, and 23–28. Anyone telling you "claims 1–5 are dead" or "the patent survived two IPRs" is describing a different patent; on this record the entire claim set is live and un-adjudicated.

Estoppel landscape. Because no petition has been filed against the '158 patent, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to any party as to these claims, and there is no IPR-driven narrowing. Practically, that means every prior-art ground is still available to a defendant — including art that could not be raised in an IPR (§ 112 written-description/enablement, on-sale/public-use, and printed publications outside the IPR window). Note two structural points: (1) IPR estoppel is patent-specific, so Toyota's IPRs on the '508 and '648 siblings create no estoppel against the '158 patent; and (2) the § 315(b) one-year clock is running per-defendant — Toyota's complaint was filed 2025-11-18 (2:25-cv-01133), so its window to petition on '158 likely closes on or about 2026-11-18, measured from service. Ford appears to have settled out (dismissed 2026-02-11), and Nissan/Volvo are the newest defendants with later clocks.

Pattern signals. (a) The same family, not the same patent, is the target: Toyota filed IPRs against sibling patents ('508 and '648) but has not petitioned on '158 — at least not yet. (b) The patent owner is an NPE (Bunker Hill / Dominion Harbor) running a multi-defendant automotive campaign, and the current assignee of record is Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC following the 2026-04-09 quitclaim. (c) A defensive aggregator is in the chain: Unified Patents has published a claim-charted prior-art invalidity chart specifically on the '158 patent and has shown a stated intent to keep charting Bunker Hill patents "weekly until its assertion of invalid patents ceases," and Unified has separately used ex parte reexamination (a no-estoppel, no-§ 315(b) tool) against a Bunker Hill sibling, '365. (d) No patent-owner PTAB appeal activity exists for '158 because there has been no adverse PTAB ruling to appeal.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant now being asserted against on the '158 patent, prepare to petition — the clock is the whole game. Toyota's § 315(b) deadline is roughly 2026-11-18 (one year from the 2025-11-18 filing, measured from service). If you are a later-added defendant (Nissan 2026-03; Volvo 2026-04), you have more runway but should preserve it. No estoppel bars you today.
2. Mine the already-charted art. Start from Unified Patents' published '158 chart — US 2011/0227534 A1 (Toyota), US 2010/0222953 A1 (Tesla), US 2012/0004073 A1 (BYD), and US 2004/0043856 A1 (Timken) — and from the art Toyota used on the sibling '508 (notably Tsuzuki, JP 2010-036880, plus Reynolds, Imai, Ashtiani, Satoru, Zing). Because the family shares a 2012-12-03 priority date and a common specification, the sibling petitions are the best available roadmap for '158 grounds and for claim-construction positions on the "power split device" and "EMS mode-selectively-enables-both-motors" limitations.
3. Consider ex parte reexamination as a parallel or fallback track. As Unified's '365 action demonstrates, an ex parte reexam is not subject to § 315(b) or IPR estoppel and can force the claims into the CRU. It does not require institution discretion, making it attractive where an IPR might be Fintiv-discretionarily denied given the parallel E.D. Tex. schedules.
4. Watch for a Toyota '158 petition before the bar date. Given Toyota petitioned on two sibling patents, a '158 petition before ~2026-11-18 is a live possibility; if it is filed, that becomes the first real PTAB event on this patent, and its institution decision would be due within six months of filing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, with any FWD within the statutory one-year trial deadline.
5. Verify before you rely. Because no PTAB record exists to cite, confirm current status directly at USPTO PTAB E2E and the Google Patents page for US10291158B2 before filing anything that depends on the absence (or presence) of an AIA trial. I found no PTAB proceeding on this patent; if a very recent petition exists, it may not yet be in ODP or in indexed search results, and this gap should be re-checked at filing time.

Confidence note: High confidence that no AIA trial has been instituted or decided on US 10,291,158 — ODP reports none and multiple targeted searches found none. Lower confidence on the negative existence of a very recently filed, unindexed petition; treat "no PTAB activity" as accurate as of 2026-09-30 and re-verify. Do not cite the '508, '648, '365, or 10,013,158 proceedings as proceedings on this patent — they are not.

I'll research the assignment record before writing anything.

Let me try to locate the actual USPTO assignment records with reel/frame data.

I was able to retrieve the ownership events and the corporate/NPE context, but not the USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record fields. I flag that explicitly below rather than inventing them.

US 10,291,158 B2 — Assignment & Ownership Chain Analysis

Data provenance note (read first). The Google Patents full text supplied in this thread lists four post-issuance reassignment events for this patent with execution-style dates and conveyance types, but no reel/frame numbers and no correspondent. My searches of the USPTO Assignment Center index, Justia, Unified Patents' portal, and the asserter directories did not surface the underlying Assignment Center records (reel/frame, correspondent attorney, assignee street address) for US 10,291,158 specifically. Accordingly:

• Every date and conveyance type below is reported as it appears in the authoritative Google Patents legal-events block in this thread.
• Reel/frame and correspondent fields are marked not retrieved — I did not locate them, and I will not reconstruct them by inference.
• Where I cite external corroboration (press releases, Unified Patents, Stanford NPE database, district-court docket), I name the source.

---

Inventors

What is determinable: the application was filed 2017-09-01 by General Electric Company (Google Patents legal event: "2017-09-01 — Application filed by General Electric Co"), and the earliest priority is the CN application 201210509493.2, priority date 2012-12-03. The technology is EV/industrial drive electronics, which is consistent with these inventors having been GE Global Research staff — but I did not confirm that employment from any source, and I am not asserting it.

Unusual-pattern check. The signal to watch is "all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, which often precedes a portfolio fire-sale." I found no evidence of inventor departures, no inventor-side assignments recorded separately, and no inventor-initiated transfers. Not present / not determinable. Note the separate inventor-adjacent data point in the press coverage (not an inventor on this patent): Dr. James Murphy, Edison Innovations' Chief Scientist, was previously "Senior Director, Material Systems for GE Licensing/Dolby Laboratories" — evidence that Edison Innovations staffed itself out of the GE Licensing/Dolby side of the transaction, not evidence of this patent's inventors leaving.

---

Original assignee

General Electric Company (the entity "named on the issued patent"; original assignee of record per Google Patents).

• Line of business: diversified industrial/technology conglomerate; the relevant business unit here is GE Licensing (GE's patent licensing arm within GE's formerly-branded GE Technology Infrastructure / GE Global Research footprint).
• Did GE ship a product embodying the claims? GE does not appear to have commercialized an EV traction drive matching claims 1/15/22 as an OEM product. The specification's own framings (FIG. 1 propulsion systems = "forklift system and a crane system"; FIG. 2 = "EV system and an elevator system") suggest GE filed this as a platform/protective filing within a large corporate portfolio rather than a product launch. This is an inference from the specification, not a verified product fact.
• Current status: GE is operating but has been substantially restructured. GE Licensing was divested; per the Edison Innovations press release (ACCESS Newswire, 2025-02-19), Dolby Laboratories "acquired these assets as part of its larger acquisition of GE Licensing" in 2024, and "held them for sale." GE has since been split into GE Aerospace / GE Vernova / GE HealthCare. No Chapter 7/Chapter 11 bankruptcy is involved.

---

Assignment timeline

Recorded/reported events affecting US 10,291,158 (from the authoritative Google Patents legal-events block in this thread):

---

• 2025-03-26 (as reported) / recorded not retrieved — Reel not retrieved/____

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
  • Assignee: GE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSING, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization — carve-out of GE's patent portfolio into a dedicated licensing subsidiary ahead of the GE Licensing divestiture.

• 2025-03-26 (as reported) / recorded not retrieved — Reel not retrieved/____

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (not a transfer of title)
  • Assignor: GE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSING, LLC
  • Assignee: DOLBY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSING, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Change of name only — no new consideration, no change in beneficial ownership at this link; reflects Dolby Laboratories' 2024 acquisition of GE Licensing (per Edison Innovations press release, 2025-02-19). Flagged inconsistency: see chronology note below.

• 2025-02-20 (as reported) / recorded not retrieved — Reel not retrieved/____

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: DOLBY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSING, LLC
  • Assignee: EDISON INNOVATIONS, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Transfer to a monetization entity. Edison Innovations, LLC is described in its own press release (ACCESS Newswire, 2025-02-19) as "a subsidiary of global patent licensor Dominion Harbor Group," acquired "a diverse, high quality patent portfolio from Dolby Laboratories, Inc." comprising "over 2,500 patent assets that Dolby recently acquired as part of its acquisition of GE Licensing," expressly for licensing. Dolby "held them for sale." This is a portfolio liquidation / acquisition-for-assertion.

• 2026-04-09 (as reported) / recorded not retrieved — Reel not retrieved/____

  • Conveyance: QUITCLAIM ASSIGNMENT (no warranties of title — notable)
  • Assignor: EDISON INNOVATIONS LLC
  • Assignee: BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Intra-family transfer to the asserting vehicle. Unified Patents identifies Bunker Hill Technologies as "an NPE and entity of Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC," i.e. the same Dominion Harbor corporate family that owns Edison Innovations. A quitclaim (rather than a warranty assignment) between two affiliates of the same parent is consistent with an internal re-papering step to place title in the vehicle that litigates. See timing flag below.

---

⚠ Two chronology flags (reported literally, not normalized)

1. Ordering anomaly within the Google Patents block. The Edison Innovations assignment (assignor = DOLBY Intellectual Property Licensing, LLC) is dated 2025-02-20, while the change of name that creates "Dolby Intellectual Property Licensing, LLC" out of GE Intellectual Property Licensing, LLC is dated 2025-03-26 — a month later. As printed, the assignor did not yet exist on the earlier date. Most likely explanation: the Google Patents event dates are recordation/entry dates, not execution dates, or the entries are simply displayed out of order. I am reporting this as a discrepancy in the source, not resolving it. This also slightly contradicts the tidy "GE → GE IPL → Dolby → Edison" narrative in the previously generated summary; the summary's sequence is the logical one, but the source page does not print the dates in that order.

2. Assignment recorded after the lawsuit. Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., No. 2:25-cv-01133 (E.D. Tex.), was filed 2025-11-18 and asserts US 10,291,158 (per Stanford NPE Database, case 308840). The only recorded transfer to Bunker Hill is dated 2026-04-09 — roughly five months after the complaint. Either (a) the assignment was executed earlier and merely recorded in April 2026 (common), or (b) there is a standing/chain-of-title question about who held title on the filing date. I cannot resolve this from the sources available; it is a concrete item to verify against the Assignment Center reel/frame execution dates and the complaint's chain-of-title exhibit.

Corroborating filing-level fact: Google Patents also lists a 2017-09-01 "Priority to US15/693,976" event and the application's filing by GE the same day — these are prosecution events, not assignments, and are excluded from the chain above.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10291158
    2012 : Priority date CN application
    2013 : Filed by General Electric
    2017 : Continuation filed by GE
    2019 : Patent issued to GE
    2024 : GE Licensing sold to Dolby
    2025 : Assigned to GE IP Licensing LLC
         : Renamed Dolby IP Licensing LLC
         : Assigned to Edison Innovations LLC
         : Suit v Toyota filed Nov 2025
    2026 : Quitclaimed to Bunker Hill Tech LLC

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — ✅ PRESENT.
The patent moved from an operating company to licensing-only entities. GE → GE Intellectual Property Licensing LLC (2025-03-26) → Dolby IP Licensing LLC (change of name, 2025-03-26) → Edison Innovations, LLC (2025-02-20), which press-released itself as "a published patent licensor"/subsidiary of Dominion Harbor Group that bought 2,500+ assets for licensing. Edison Innovations is a portfolio-holding/licensing vehicle with no product line. Concrete, source-cited evidence of a licensing-only vehicle, not a name-suffix inference alone: Dominion Harbor's own materials describe Edison as "patent licensor to leading technology clients," i.e. a monetization business (ACCESS Newswire 2025-02-19; 2025-04-21). Caveat: I do not have the assignee registered address or LLC-formation records, so the "registered-agent address / single-member Delaware LLC" sub-tells are unverified.

2. Known asserter in the chain — ✅ PRESENT.
Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC is expressly identified by Unified Patents as "an NPE and entity of Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC," and is tracked as a Non Practicing Entity by the Stanford NPE Database (case 308840; "Acquired patents"). Its parent, Dominion Harbor Group (Dallas, TX; CEO David Pridham), is a recognized patent-licensing/monetization firm active in high-frequency assertion. Bunker Hill has filed against Toyota (2:25-cv-01133, 2025-11-18), Nissan (2:26-cv-00231, 2026-03-19), and (per Unified) Ford. This satisfies the "any entity surfaced by Unified Patents or RPX as a high-frequency plaintiff" branch of the signal. Note this is not one of the enumerated legacy NPE names (Acacia / Marathon / IV / Wi-LAN / etc.) — it is a Dominion Harbor entity.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — ⚠ UNCLEAR (data not obtained).
This is the single most diagnostic field the task asks for, and it is precisely the field I could not retrieve. I have no correspondent-of-record data for any of the four links in this chain. I therefore cannot state whether one attorney/firm recorded every link for the Dominion Harbor chain. Note a related-but-different datum I did find and must not conflate: Bunker Hill's litigation counsel of record in E.D. Tex. has included Thomas William Kennedy, Jr. and Patrick Conroy (appearance filings, Dec 2025 / Mar 2026, per the Justia docket). Litigation counsel ≠ assignment correspondent; conflating them would be exactly the kind of unsupported inference the brief forbids. Action item: pull reel/frame correspondent fields from the Assignment Center.

4. Cascading transfers — ✅ PRESENT.
Roughly three to four title-affecting events in a ~13-month window (2025-02-20 through 2026-04-09), through chained LLCs, where the last two assignees — Edison Innovations, LLC and Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC — are common-controlled by the same parent, Dominion Harbor Group / Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC (per press release and Unified Patents respectively). Shared principals are documented, not inferred. The final step is a quitclaim between affiliates, a classic intra-family re-papering.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — ⚠ PARTIAL / DOES NOT MEET THE 6-MONTH TEST AS DEFINED.
The Dolby → Edison Innovations acquisition (2025-02-20) preceded the first suit naming this patent (Toyota, 2025-11-18) by roughly nine months — outside the stated six-month window. The Bunker Hill quitclaim (2026-04-09) falls after the suit. So the literal signal as defined is not present. What is present is the broader pattern: the portfolio was acquired by a monetization entity and then asserted (the Nov 2025 complaint targets Toyota's "Hybrid Synergy Drive" two-motor-generator + planetary power-split architecture, which maps onto claim 1's "first AC motor / second AC motor / power split device"). Flagging the distinction rather than stretching the signal.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — ❌ NOT PRESENT.
No GE bankruptcy. The relevant event is a corporate divestiture — GE Licensing sold to Dolby Laboratories in 2024, which then held the assets for sale and sold to Edison Innovations in Feb 2025 (both per the ACCESS Newswire release of 2025-02-19). A portfolio liquidation, but not a bankruptcy sale under §363. Worth noting that this is a two-step liquidation (operating co → operating co holding for resale → monetization entity), which is a slightly less common and more deliberately intermediated pattern than a direct operating-co-to-NPE sale.

7. Privateering — ❌ NOT PRESENT (on the evidence available).
Privateering requires the originating operating company to benefit from the NPE's assertions against competitors. Here GE exited entirely; it is not a beneficiary, retains no apparent stake, and the assertions run against Toyota/Nissan/Ford — GE's erstwhile customers, not its competitors in the ex-GE-Licensing business. No SEC filing evidence of a retained interest or back-end was found. Mark not present; the closer characterization is portfolio liquidation, not privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — ❌ NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC, which is actively asserting — the inverse signal. A defensive aggregator only appears on the opposing side: Unified Patents published an invalidity chart against US 10,291,158 (chart at unifiedpatents.com, released ~Dec 2025) and obtained an ex parte reexamination grant on Bunker Hill's US 9,914,365 (CRU grant 2026-06-01, reexam control no. 90016093). Separately, Toyota filed IPR2026-00250 against Bunker Hill (filed 2026-02-03; terminated–settled 2026-08-12) — though that IPR targets US 10,549,648, not the '158. I found no IPR or ex parte reexamination specifically against US 10,291,158.

---

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

Three strong signals are present and each is grounded in a dated event plus an independent source, not in naming: (1) shell-entity transfer — the patent left an operating company for Edison Innovations, LLC, a self-described Dominion Harbor Group "patent licensor" that bought 2,500+ GE-origin assets for licensing (assignment 2025-02-20; ACCESS Newswire 2025-02-19); (2) known asserter in the chain — Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC, which Unified Patents identifies as "an NPE and entity of Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC" and which is flagged Non Practicing Entity by the Stanford NPE Database (case 308840); and (4) cascading transfers — three to four title events between 2025-02-20 and 2026-04-09, the last a quitclaim between two commonly controlled Dominion Harbor affiliates, with active assertion against Toyota (2:25-cv-01133, filed 2025-11-18), Nissan (2:26-cv-00231, 2026-03-19) and Ford.

Two items I deliberately did not close: (i) reel/frame numbers and the correspondent of record for all four links were not retrievable from the sources I could reach — the repeat-correspondent signal (§3) therefore remains unclear, and no claim about it should be made until the Assignment Center records are pulled; and (ii) the 2026-04-09 quitclaim postdates the November 2025 complaint, raising a chain-of-title/standing question that the reel/frame execution dates would resolve. My verdict rests on signals 1, 2 and 4, all of which are independent of those two gaps.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10291158)
• USPTO legacy assignment index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Unified Patents Bunker Hill prior-art chart for the '158: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/s/BunkerHill_US10291158_invalidity-chart.pdf
• Stanford NPE Database, Bunker Hill v. Toyota: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/308840
• E.D. Tex. docket 2:25-cv-01133: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv01133/[241855](/patent/241855)
• Edison Innovations acquisition release (2025-02-19): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/markets-news/ACCESS%20Newswire/31013992/

I'll research the citations and prior art for US 10,291,158 B2. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me gather the full citation lists and details on the key references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,291,158 B2

Bottom line: I was able to retrieve the face‑of‑patent citation list (partially) and, more importantly, the four references that have actually been charted against this patent's claims in litigation-defense work (the Unified Patents invalidity chart). Those four are the most probative prior art on the record. The Google Patents "Citations (74)" list is truncated in the authoritative text supplied, and my retrieval attempts were cut off before I could enumerate all 74 — so Section 4 below is partial and flagged as such.

---

1. Sourcing note and completeness (read first)

Rule applied: I report alphanumerics literally and do not normalize numbers. Where I could not confirm a reference's title, date, or content, I say so rather than guessing. I have not auto-corrected anything.

---

2. Art-date boundary (why some cited references may not be § 102 art)

• '158's earliest priority: 2012‑12‑03 (CN 201210509493.2); parent US 14/094,086 filed 2013‑12‑02; this continuation (15/693,976) filed 2017‑09‑01.
• For § 102 purposes, a cited US patent/publication is only anticipatory if it was effectively filed before 2012‑12‑03 (or the parent's 2013‑12‑02 date, if the CN priority is not perfected).
• ⚠️ Consequence: several face-of-patent citations that issued in 2015–2017 (e.g., US 9,145,131; US 9,561,719) are cited in the patent's list but are later-dated documents — they can only be § 102(e)/(a)(2) art if their own effective filing predates the critical date. I flag this rather than assume. (Date inconsistency also flagged in the prior sections: the task states April 26, 2026 while the system date reads 2026‑09‑30, and one retrieved Unified insight is dated 2026‑07‑06 — I am reporting the records as retrieved.)

---

3. MOST RELEVANT PRIOR ART — the four charted references

These are the references actually applied against the '158 claims by Unified Patents' claim charts (short cites in quotes are the chart's own):

Note on the chart's claim coverage: the retrieved excerpt of the '158 chart shows the claim‑22 heading, indicating the chart maps at least independent claim 22 and (by the chart's structure) the other two independent claims 1 and 15. I could not retrieve the full per-limitation mapping.

---

4. FACE‑OF‑PATENT EXAMINER/APPLICANT CITATIONS (partial — U.S. documents)

Source: Justia "Referenced Cited" for 10,291,158. Dates are the printed issue dates. Descriptions below are given only where I have adequate confidence; otherwise marked "title not verified." These are prosecution citations, not a court‑sanctioned anticipation set.

(The Justia list also includes further U.S. and "Ex‑US" foreign documents and non‑patent literature that were beyond the retrieved excerpt.)

---

5. § 102 anticipation summary for the three independent claims

Key legal/technical caveat: the '158 litigation theory (per the prior litigation section) targets Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive (MG1/MG2 + planetary power split) — i.e., the same architecture as US 2011/0227534. That reference is therefore the single most dangerous piece of art for claims 1/15/22, and it is the reference most worth pulling in full and reading against each limitation.

---

6. Explicit "could not verify / not found"

• Not retrieved: the complete enumerated list of all 74 citations printed on the '158 face; only a partial U.S. list plus the four charted references were obtained before retrieval was cut off. I am not representing Section 4 as complete.
• Not verified: titles/disclosures of US 2010/0222953, US 2012/0004073 and US 2004/0043856 beyond their number/date and their appearance in the Unified charts; and many titles in Section 4.
• No PTAB IPR / ex parte reexam specific to 10,291,158 found in the results returned (consistent with the earlier analysis). Unified's filed challenge was against the '365 patent; its '158 activity is a prior-art/validity chart, i.e., defensive analysis, not a filed proceeding. (Newer Unified insight dated 2026‑07‑06 signals a "coming soon" validity challenge — reported as retrieved.)
• The related chart for US‑10,374,529 contains a passage (dual‑motor, second machine regenerating, ~10% torque to drive shaft 36) that reads on the '158 "second mode" limitation; I could not confirm which reference number the chart attributes it to.

---

7. Sources cited

• Google Patents (authoritative full text + assignment/legal-status/litigation): https://patents.google.com/patent/US10291158/en
• Justia — face‑of‑patent "Referenced Cited" (partial): https://patents.justia.com/patent/10291158
• Unified Patents invalidity chart, US‑10291158: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/s/BunkerHill_US10291158_invalidity-chart.pdf
• Unified Patents invalidity chart, US‑10,374,529: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/s/BunkerHill_US10374529_invalidity-chart.pdf
• US 2011/0227534 A1 ("Vehicular charging system"): https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110227534A1/en
• uspto.report grant record: https://uspto.report/patent/grant/10,291,158
• Unified Patents "Dominion Harbor entity Bunker Hill patent validity challenge coming soon": https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/7/6/dominion-harbor-entity-bunker-hill-patent-validity-challenge-coming-soon

Recommended next step to close the gaps: pull the complete § 102 reference list (US and foreign) from the USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper for 15/693,976, and obtain full text of US 2011/0227534, US 2010/0222953, US 2012/0004073 and US 2004/0043856 to verify the Unified chart's per‑limitation mapping. If you want, I can then build a full element‑by‑element claim chart for independent claims 1, 15 and 22 against US 2011/0227534 alone.

I'll gather the prior-art references of record and the defensive chart before building the § 103 combinations.

Let me pull the specific references and the chart details.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Pat. No. 10,291,158 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This section builds on the Patent Summary and Litigation Summary already generated above. I do not repeat the bibliographic record or the status of Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC v. Toyota, No. 2:25-cv-01133 (E.D. Tex.).

---

0. Evidentiary record and its limits (read this first)

I want to be explicit about what I could and could not ground.

• The authoritative Google Patents text supplied in this thread truncates the "Citations (74)" block. The listing ends mid-table ("* Cited by examiner, † Cited by" — with no rows). I therefore do not have the examiner-cited or third-party-cited 74 references. Any § 103 ground built on them must be re-verified against the file wrapper for application 15/693,976 (and its parent 14/094,086).
• The four references identified in the Unified Patents prior-art chart (reported in the Litigation Summary above) are the only concrete prior-art set I can name from the source page context:

• Caveat on verification. I retrieved the abstract-level and CPC/metadata content of R1, R2 and R3 in this session but could not retrieve the full texts of R1–R4 (the tool budget was exhausted before I could pull them, and the Unified chart PDF at https://www.unifiedpatents.com/s/BunkerHill_US10291158_invalidity-chart.pdf did not render in my results). The element-level mappings below are therefore provisional and preliminary; they are grounded in the retrieved metadata, titles, and CPC classifications, plus the general state of the art. Every row marked ⚠ must be re-verified by reading the reference. I flag this rather than presenting an unverified chart as settled.
• Because the effective filing date is 2012-12-03 (CN 201210509493.2 priority; 14/094,086 filed 2013-12-02), pre-AIA §§ 102/103 apply (AIA first-inventor-to-file governs applications filed on or after 2013-03-16). This matters: pre-AIA § 102(e) and the "prior invention" provisions remain available against these claims, and KSR rather than the AIA's codified "additional" rationale applies.

---

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

A POSITA here would be a person with (a) a B.S. in electrical or mechanical engineering (or equivalent), and (b) 3–5 years of experience in electric/hybrid-vehicle powertrains and AC motor drives, including inverter control, regenerative braking, and torque-split strategy design. That is the same level the specification itself assumes when it repeatedly says "a person having ordinary skills in the art may apply the method disclosed herein to other propulsion systems."

At that level, the following were routine design vocabulary by 2012: planetary/differential gear power-split devices; two-motor-generator architectures with an inverter and a controller; operating an electric machine as a motor in one mode and as a generator in another; hybridized battery + ultracapacitor energy storage; and distributing a total torque command between two machines using fixed proportions, average/peak splits, or efficiency maps.

---

2. Construction of the dispositive limitations

Two constructions drive the analysis:

1. "power split device … comprising an arrangement of gears for processing mechanical torque provided by the AC motors or load." The term "power split device" is the settled term of art for a planetary/differential gear set that sums or splits torque among multiple mechanical ports. The claim expressly contemplates bi-directional torque flow ("provided by the AC motors or load"). It does not require an engine port and does not require a particular gear topology.
2. "configured to selectively enable…" Configured to is not a means-plus-function phrase under Williamson v. Citrix. So claims 1, 15 and 22 are not limited to any particular control algorithm — no specific efficiency equation, no specific look-up table, no specific state machine. The claim is met by any controller programmed to select the two recited operating configurations. This is important: the patent's disclosed algorithms (FIGS. 6–10: fixed proportion, T_average/T_peak split, P_loss1+P_loss2 = min, the P_bat/P_uc state machine) are not claim limitations and cannot supply patentability.

---

3. Claim 1 element map (provisional — ⚠ rows require full-text verification)

Net read of the map: R1 supplies the dual-AC-motor EV with a power-split gearset, an ESS, an inverter-based power conversion system, and a controller that selects which machine(s) motor and which generate(s). R3 (and R2) supply the specific series configuration in which a first machine drives the load through a planetary power split while the second machine takes torque from that power split and generates. The '158 claim-1 mode (b) is precisely this configuration.

---

4. Ground 1 (primary): R1 + R3, optionally + R2

Proposed rejection: Claim 1 obvious over US 2010/0222953 in view of US 2012/0004073, further in view of US 2011/0227534.

Rationale / motivation to combine (articulated on the KSR factors):

1. Same field, same problem, same predictable solution. R1 and R3 are both vehicular electric-drive architectures addressing the identical problem the '158 patent poses in its Background: how to satisfy both the energy/power envelope and the torque/speed envelope without oversizing the equipment. R1 uses two traction motors and a power splitter to cover the envelope; R3 uses a power-split planetary with two motor/generators and mode logic. Combining them is the combination of prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results — KSR factor 1.
2. The combination is a mere substitution of one known element for another. Replacing R1's mode-selection logic with R3's series/generator mode — i.e., allowing the second machine to be driven by the power split device to generate while the first machine drives — is a substitution of one known motor-drive mode for another, yielding the predictable result of on-board electrical generation — KSR factor 3.
3. Express teaching/suggestion is present in R3. R3's "series-parallel, electrical distribution" classification (B60K6/44, 6/448) denotes operation in which one machine generates electricity that electrically powers the other machine — directionally identical to claim 1's mode (b). R2 independently confirms the same skill-set: on-board generation/charging through the traction machine and inverter (CPC B60L58/15 precharge-overcharge circuitry), which is the "electrical power generated by the second AC motor" element of dependent claim 10.
4. Design incentive / market pressure. Fuel-economy and emissions regulation and the well-documented desire for EV range and efficiency (both R1 and R3 recite these) supplied a concrete incentive to add a generating mode to a dual-motor EV — KSR factor 5 (design incentives in the marketplace).
5. No teaching away. Nothing in R1 discourages using one motor as a generator; R1 already discloses a generating/regenerating role for a machine and explicitly discusses efficiency optimization over the vehicle's operating range.

Patent-owner counter and response. The owner may argue that R1's dual motor drive drives two separate wheel sets rather than a single load through a shared gearset. Anticipate this: R1 itself describes (in its Background excerpt) "power splitter 111 splits the power … between generator 113 and the drive system, i.e., gears 103, axle 105 and wheels 101" and discusses the integrated-motor-assist parallel architecture. R3 supplies the single-output planetary split. The gap, if any, is one of arrangement, not of principle; it is a predictable variation of the power-split topology (KSR factor 3). If the owner instead argues that claim 1 requires a single vehicle load, note the claim says "a load of the vehicle," and claim 1 does not exclude two axle loads.

---

5. Ground 2 (alternative): R2 + R1 + R3

Proposed rejection: Claim 1 obvious over US 2011/0227534 in view of US 2010/0222953 and US 2012/0004073.

Rationale. R2 is classified squarely in the power-split hybrid space (B60K6/42–6/445 "differential gearing distribution type"; B60K6/52 driving plural axles) and in vehicle charging/power management (B60L58/15, B60L58/12 SoC response). It therefore discloses a vehicular system with a differential-gearing power split, plural electric machines, a battery, and charge/power-management control — the architectural skeleton of claim 1. R1 supplies the dual-AC-motor drive and the motor/generator mode selection, and R3 supplies the series generation mode. The motivation is the same as Ground 1, and R2 independently evidences that on-board charging/generation through the traction machines was known.

---

6. Ground 3 (alternative): R4 as primary

Proposed rejection: Claim 1 obvious over US 2004/0043856 in view of US 2010/0222953.

⚠ Verification required. I could not retrieve the full text of US 2004/0043856 in this session; the number was identified only as one of the four charted by Unified Patents. Its 2004 publication date gives it § 102(b) status as of the 2012-12-03 critical date, and the chart's inclusion of it suggests it discloses the two-machine + power split + drive/generate mode core. Do not rely on this ground until the reference text is read and the element map is complete. I am listing it for completeness, not as a verified ground.

---

7. Dependent claims — chain-level obviousness

Dependent claims 2–14, 16–21, 23–28 are, on my review, routine implementation details of a hybrid/EV drivetrain, each independently and commonly known well before 2012:

Because claims 1, 15 and 22 are not limited to any control algorithm, the entire FIG. 6–10 disclosure base — the mode table, the torque distribution unit, the fixed-proportion and average/peak algorithms, the P_loss1+P_loss2=min efficiency algorithm, and the P_bat/P_uc state machine — adds nothing to patentability of these claims. That is the single most important observation in this analysis: the owner's likely validity story lives in the specification, but the claim language does not reach it.

---

8. Independent claims 15 and 22

• Claim 15 recasts claim 1 functionally as "first/second motor/generator" with a "first mode"/"second mode" recital. It is coextensive in scope with claim 1's two selective configurations and rises and falls with Ground 1.
• Claim 22 adds the limitation that the transmission device is coupled to the first AC motor and the power split device is coupled between the transmission device and the second AC motor — the topology shown in the '158's FIG. 3 (transmission device 119, power split device 122). R1 (transmission 205/307 feeding the motor-to-wheel path; the IMA arrangement of motor 201 between engine 203 and transmission 205) discloses the "transmission coupled to the motor" placement, and R3's differential-gearing power split supplies the "power split between the transmission and the second machine" arrangement. Expect obviousness over R1 + R3 with the same motivations.

---

9. Two anomalies to preserve (do not auto-correct)

1. Claim 23 reads: "The electric drive system of claim 14, wherein the power conversion system comprises a power conversion device coupled to the energy storage unit." It is positioned after claim 22 and purports to depend from claim 14 (which depends from claim 1 and recites "the ESS comprises an energy storage unit"). As drafted, claim 23 does not depend from the transmission-device claim (22) it sits behind, so it may not carry claim 24's added inverter limitation into claim 22's family. I report the dependency exactly as it appears; whether it is a typographical error requiring a certificate of correction is a legal question I cannot resolve from the text alone. This affects the scope of claims 24–28 (which depend from claim 22) and should be addressed in any invalidity chart.
2. Claim 14 is a duplicate of claim 3 (both recite "the ESS comprises an energy storage unit"). This confirms the § 9.1 anomaly is likely a numbering slip, but it is reported, not normalized.

---

10. Anticipation vs. obviousness — why § 103 is the right theory

A § 102 theory would require a single reference disclosing the engine-less, two-AC-motor, geared-power-split system with both the "both motors drive" mode and the "first drives / second generates from the split" mode. R3 comes closest (power split + two machines + series mode) but, on the classification evidence available, is a hybrid system in which an engine is part of the power split. Removing the engine from R3 to reach claim 1 would itself be an obviousness-style modification, not anticipation. § 103 is therefore the sounder and more defensible theory, and the "both-motor" mode is separately supplied by R1.

---

11. Secondary considerations

I found no evidence in the record of secondary considerations with a nexus to the claims:

• No unexpected results are asserted in the specification beyond the ordinary efficiency/energy-envelope benefits that are the stated purpose of the prior art in the same field (R1, R3). Benefits that are the expected consequence of the modification do not rebut obviousness.
• Commercial success / copying — the pending suit against Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive products (accused of using MG1/MG2, a power control unit, and a planetary gear set) is being reported in the Litigation Summary as the infringement theory. If the owner introduces the accused products' success as a secondary consideration, note the timing problem: the accused architecture is a long-established power-split design that predates the 2012-12-03 priority date, which undercuts any "copying of the inventor's solution" or "licensing due to the invention" theory. Whether the products' success is attributable to the claimed selective mode-selection rather than to unrelated hybrid-system factors is the nexus question the owner would have to prove.
• No evidence of a long-felt but unmet need that the prior art failed to satisfy; to the contrary, the '158 Background concedes the field already contained single-ESS, single-motor, and dual-ESS systems, and the art already taught dual-machine drive (R1) and power-split generation (R2/R3).

---

12. Anticipated patent-owner rebuttals and how to preempt them

1. "The references are non-analogous." Weak — R1, R2 and R3 are all vehicular electric/hybrid propulsion systems; they are from the same field and address the same problem.
2. "No motivation to combine." Preempted by (a) the shared problem statement, (b) R3's express series-generation mode, (c) the regulatory/market efficiency incentive, and (d) KSR's express instruction that a motivation can be found "in the nature of the problem" and that predictable variations are obvious.
3. "The claimed combination achieves a result the references don't." Because "configured to" is not means-plus-function, the owner must show the claimed result itself is unexpected, using the claimed structure — not the FIG. 6–10 algorithms the claims omit.
4. "Hindsight." Preempted by the fact that every element is separately admitted-known or disclosed in the field pre-2012, and by the specification's own Background admissions (single ESS, single motor, dual ESS with a single motor).

---

13. Confidence and next steps

Confidence levels

• High: the legal framework (pre-AIA § 103, KSR), the POSITA level, the "configured to" construction, the dependent-claim mapping as common design choices, the identification of the dispositive claim-1 modes, and the claim 23 / claim 14 anomalies.
• Medium: the R1 element map (grounded in retrieved abstract/CPC content and a direct excerpt showing power splitter 111 / planetary gears 103 / transmission 205).
• Low / unverified: the full-text element maps for R2, R3 and R4, and the § 102(e) vs. § 102(a)/(b) posture of R2 and R3, which depend on their underlying U.S. filing dates. These must be verified before any chart is served or any petition is filed.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper for 15/693,976 (and 14/094,086) to recover the truncated "Citations (74)" list and the examiner's reasons for allowance — that is where the strongest § 102/§ 103 art usually sits.
2. Retrieve and read the full texts of R1–R4 and complete the element map, replacing every ⚠ row with a verified citation (column/paragraph/claim/Figma).
3. Retrieve the Unified Patents chart PDF (BunkerHill_US10291158_invalidity-chart.pdf) for its specific mappings, treating it as a lead, not as authority.
4. Add Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive printed publications (SAE/technical literature) and early Toyota power-split patents as § 102(b) art; the phrase "power split device" in the '158 claims tracks that art's vocabulary and may yield a cleaner primary reference.
5. Confirm the R4 reference identity and content before including Ground 3.
6. Address the claim 23 dependency anomaly expressly in any chart, and confirm whether the '158 patent family's co-pending members (10,374,529; 10,673,358; 11,374,508) share the limitation, since the same prior art may dispose of all four.

Not found / not asserted: I state affirmatively that I did not identify a single reference that anticipates claim 1 on its own, and I did not identify any evidence of secondary considerations with a nexus to the claims. Both are negative results from the record available to me, not proof that none exists.