US 10620025

I'll search for this specific patent number and any litigation dockets involving it.

Let me dig into the claim set and check for any litigation involving this patent or its owner.

Let me run a couple more targeted searches for any current litigation or PTAB activity on this specific patent.

Patent Profile — US 10,620,025 B2

Searched: Google Patents (authoritative full text), Justia Patents, PTAB/PTActs, Docket Alarm, CourtListener, and general web. Note on scope: I found no CAFC 2026 docket, no district-court complaint, and no PTAB proceeding naming US 10,620,025. I also could not access a live USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Public Search record directly in this session, so bibliographic data below is taken from the patent's own front-page text as fetched from Google Patents (authoritative), cross-checked against Justia and the EPO/global family listing.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

Disclosed herein is a flow conduit insert (FCI) for a flow conduit (CON) of an ultrasonic flow meter (UFM), the ultrasonic flow meter (UFM) being arranged to measure a flow of a liquid passing through the flow conduit (CON) by means of an ultrasound signal, the flow conduit insert (FCI) being adapted for being inserted into the inner space of the flow conduit (CON), the flow conduit insert (FCI) being adapted for accommodating the entire path (PTH) in the flow conduit (CON) of the ultrasound signal, the flow conduit insert (FCI) having a first end (1EN) and a second opposite (2EN) end and an inner flow channel (CUN), said first and second ends (1EN, 2EN) being connected by the flow channel (CUN), the flow conduit insert (FCI) being adapted such that the flow of liquid passes through the flow channel (CUN), wherein the flow conduit insert (FCI) comprises a first and a second part (IPA, 2PA) forming the flow channel (CUN), said first and second parts (IPA, 2PA) each extending from said first end (1EN) to said second end (2EN), wherein each of said first and second parts (IPA, 2PA) comprises one or more guide elements (GUE) extending into the flow channel (CUN). An ultrasonic flow meter (UFM) comprising such flow conduit insert (FCI) and use of a flow conduit insert (FCI) for correcting flow is also disclosed.

(Note: "CUN," "IPA," "2PA," "1EN," "2EN" are OCR/typographic renderings in the granted abstract; the specification consistently uses CHN, 1PA, 2PA, 1EN, 2EN.)

Plain-language overview of the claims

Claim 1 — the independent claim I could verify verbatim (source: Justia patents.justia.com/patent/10620025, which reproduces the granted claim set):

1. A flow conduit insert for a flow conduit of an ultrasonic utility flow meter,

• the ultrasonic utility flow meter being arranged to measure a flow of a liquid passing through the flow conduit by means of an ultrasound signal,
• the flow conduit insert being adapted for being inserted into the inner space of the flow conduit,
• the flow conduit insert being adapted for accommodating the entire path in the flow conduit of the ultrasound signal,
• the flow conduit insert having a first end and a second opposite end and an inner flow channel, said first and second ends being connected by the flow channel, the flow conduit insert being adapted such that the flow of liquid passes through the flow channel,
• wherein the flow conduit insert comprises a first and a second part forming the flow channel, said first and second parts each extending from said first end to said second end,
• wherein each of said first and second parts comprises one or more guide elements extending into the flow channel.

In plain terms: Claim 1 covers a removable sleeve-like insert that drops into the meter's spool/flow tube. Three things must be true:

1. The insert is sized and arranged so that the whole ultrasound beam path inside the tube (from where the signal enters to where it exits, including any reflector hops) lies within the insert's length.
2. It is built from two complementary parts — effectively clamshell halves — that together define the internal flow channel, and each half runs the full length from the inlet end to the outlet end (i.e., the split is longitudinal, not a short ring or a partial liner).
3. Each half carries its own guide element(s) — e.g., wings — that protrude into and condition the flow channel.

Dependent claims (themes, per the granted claim list I could retrieve): the insert's outer periphery matching the conduit's inner shape (cl. 2); a first and second through-hole in the outer periphery for the ultrasound signal to enter/leave (cl. 3); elongated shape (cl. 4); adapted to increase flow velocity through the channel and thus extend low-flow accuracy (cl. 5); guide elements as guide wings (cl. 6); guide elements parallel to the longitudinal direction (cl. 7); the longitudinal centre axis left free of contact (cl. 8); a clear line of sight through the channel (cl. 9); adapted for supporting/fixating ultrasound reflectors (cl. 10); co-operating with reflector fixation arrangements (cl. 11); and a combination with ≥3 reflectors and two transducers emitting at a non-orthogonal (e.g., 10°–80°) angle (cl. 12). The specification also describes further dependent subject matter such as grouping of guide elements at matching longitudinal positions, three zones (two flow-correcting regions flanking a measuring region), guide-element area limits, symmetric/identical halves, rounded or cut-off corners, and parts free of undercuts formed by injection moulding.

Uncertainty flag on independent claims: The sources I retrieved showed claim 1 and dependent claims 2–12 in sequence but truncated the tail of the claim set. The specification states the invention "further relates to an ultrasonic flow meter comprising a flow conduit… and a flow conduit insert…" and to "a use of a flow conduit insert… for correcting a flow of liquid in a flow conduit of an ultrasonic flow meter." That strongly implies at least one further independent claim directed to the ultrasonic flow meter and/or to the use. I could not verify the exact number, numbering, or verbatim wording of those additional independent claim(s) from the sources retrieved, so I am not stating them as fact. If claim-level precision matters, the granted claim set should be confirmed against the USPTO PatentCenter record for US 16/081,721.

Litigation / CAFC status

• No CAFC 2026 docket, ITC action, or district-court case involving US 10,620,025 was found.
• Do not conflate with unrelated " '025" references. Searches surfaced PTAB papers referring to a " '025 patent" owned by VB Assets / asserted against Amazon — that is a different patent and different parties, not this one.
• The known Apator Miitors litigation is a different patent. Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S, No. 2017-1681 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2018), 887 F.3d 1293, and the underlying IPR2015-01403 concerned U.S. Patent 8,893,559. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's finding that Apator failed to corroborate inventor (Drachmann) testimony to swear behind the Nielsen reference. That case is not about US 10,620,025.
• Related party activity found: Apator Miitors has filed EPO oppositions against Kamstrup patents (2018–2021), and the European sibling of this patent is EP 3427014 B1 (no opposition filed; national translations lapsed in some states per the EPO register).

Bottom line

US 10,620,025 is an Apator Miitors ApS patent (Drachmann & Caldwell) filed as a PCT national phase on 2016-03-07 and granted 2020-04-14, directed to a two-part, full-length flow-conditioning insert for an ultrasonic utility flow meter that sits inside the meter's flow tube, spans the entire ultrasound path, and uses guide wings on each half to reduce swirl/asymmetric flow and to raise flow velocity through the measuring region for better low-flow accuracy. The claim set appears to have one verified independent claim (claim 1, the flow conduit insert) plus dependent claims, and likely additional independent claim(s) for the meter and/or the use, which I could not verify verbatim. I found no CAFC 2026 (or other) litigation naming this patent.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10620025.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

I'll start by verifying the structured record against live sources for any AIA trial activity on this patent.

Let me probe more specifically for post-grant proceedings against this particular patent number and its family.

Let me run a final round of verification searches, including on the patent's own transaction/litigation record and any US enforcement activity involving this family.

Proceedings overview

Zero. The structured USPTO ODP record for US 10,620,025 lists 0 AIA trial proceedings — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM — so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials, and the bottom-line posture for a defendant is the least favorable of the three archetypes: every claim of this patent is untested at the PTAB, no FWD exists to lean on, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has been triggered against anyone — the patent has never been through the wringer, which means you (or your co-defendants) will be the first to take it there.

Two independent checks corroborated the structured record: a targeted search for IPR/PGR activity tied to this patent number returned nothing on the '025, and a search for Apator Miitors PTAB/enforcement activity returned only proceedings on sibling patents in the same family. I flag no contradiction with the previously-generated sections — the litigation summary is inconclusive (blank search scaffolding) and the PTAB block says "no PTAB activity on file." Both are consistent with what I could verify.

Because the count is zero, there are no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} sections to write. Inventing one would be fabrication. What does exist, and matters a great deal for strategy, is family-adjacent PTAB history — but read the warning label below before you use any of it.

Family-adjacent AIA proceedings — NOT on US 10,620,025

These are on different Apator Miitors patents in the same ultrasonic-meter family. They are not proceedings "on file" for the '025, they carry no estoppel consequence for the '025, and they cannot be cited to a court as an adjudication of the '025's claims. They are intelligence, not authority.

IPR2015-01403 — Kamstrup A/S v. Apator Miitors ApS

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2015 (petition); institution and FWD in 2016
• Patent challenged: US 8,893,559 B2 — not US 10,620,025
• Status: Final Written Decision issued 2016-12-20; all challenged claims held unpatentable; affirmed on appeal
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Jameson Lee, Matthew R. Clements, and John F. Horvath (Horvath authored)
• Petition grounds: Claims 1–13 challenged under pre-AIA § 103(a) and § 102(e) over Rhodes, Drachmann '250, Drachmann '311, Nielsen, Marsh, Walker, Yamamoto, Buckberry, and Körner
• Institution decision: Instituted on all of claims 1–13 (Paper 7)
• Final Written Decision: "Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-13 of the '559 patent are unpatentable." All thirteen claims canceled. Verdict at claim level: claims 1, 6, 11, 13 obvious over Rhodes + Drachmann '250; claim 2 obvious over Rhodes + Drachmann '250 + Nielsen, and separately anticipated by Nielsen; claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 12 obvious over Rhodes/Drachmann '250 + Marsh or Walker; claim 7 over + Yamamoto; claim 9 over + Buckberry; claim 10 over Rhodes + Drachmann '250 + Nielsen + Körner. The Board also rejected Apator's § 102(g) swear-behind of Nielsen, holding that "other than Mr. Drachmann's own testimony, [Apator] has presented no evidence that Mr. Drachmann conceived the [meter] prior to the effective filing date of Nielsen." FWD: https://www.finnegan.com/a/web/[176233](/patent/176233)/2G4CQg/20161220_ipr201501403_kamstrup_v_apatormiitors_fwd.pdf
• Settlement / termination: None — tried to FWD.
• Appeal: Yes. Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S, No. 2017-1681 (Fed. Cir. 2018-04-17) (Moore, joined by Linn and Chen), affirmed. The panel held substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Drachmann's conception testimony was insufficiently corroborated — the proffered emails and drawings "can only provide that corroboration with help from Mr. Drachmann's testimony," a "catch-22 of corroboration." Opinion: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4487342](/patent/4487342)/apator-miitors-aps-v-kamstrup-as/
• Defensive value for the '025: Limited and indirect. It establishes (a) Apator Miitors is a seasoned, aggressive PTAB defender that will proffer inventor-declaration priority evidence and appeal adverse outcomes all the way to the Federal Circuit, and (b) the family's Nielsen reference has already been held to have a 2010-03-25 § 102(e) date that the patent owner failed, on appeal, to antedate. That is useful only if Nielsen also reads on '025 claims — verify independently.

Companion IPR on a related Apator Miitors patent (same appeal)

A second Apator Miitors patent was also IPR'd in this wave — reported as a proceeding in which "a claim of the other patent would have been obvious in view of Nielsen and another reference," and which was consolidated into the same Federal Circuit appeal, No. 2017-1681. I could not verify the proceeding number in this session, and I am deliberately not supplying one. If you need it, pull the J.A. citations in the 2017-1681 opinion or the PTAB's consolidated docket via PTAB E2E rather than relying on this summary.

Strategic summary

Claim-level status of US 10,620,025. Every claim is UNTESTED. No claim is canceled, none has been sustained, none has been construed by the Board. There is therefore no "dead claim" to exploit — the classic IPR-defense playbook (quote the FWD, show the troll's asserted claim is already canceled) is simply unavailable here. Note that the '025 issued 2020-04-14 from a PCT filed 2016-03-07 (PCT/DK2016/050064), so it has a post-AIA effective filing date; its claims are not "hardened" by surviving review, they are simply untested. Statutory life runs to the 2036-03-07 anticipated expiration.

Estoppel landscape. There is none to speak of, and that cuts both ways. Because no IPR reached a final written decision on this patent, § 315(e)(2) estops nobody — no petitioner, no RPI, no privy. Conversely, nothing about the '025 has been "reasonably could have been raised" yet, so your entire prior-art runway is open: § 102 and § 103, printed publications, patents, and — if you can find them — public uses or on-sale activity. Two real constraints remain: § 315(b) gives you one year from service of a complaint alleging infringement of the '025, and § 325(d) lets the Board discretionarily deny if your art or arguments were already before the examiner. Pull the '025 file wrapper early and map your art against the examiner's citations before you budget the petition. Note also that any Kamstrup-side § 315(e)(1) estoppel from IPR2015-01403 attaches only to claims of US 8,893,559 — it does not travel to the '025.

Pattern signals. Three things stand out. First, Apator Miitors is a hard-fighting patent owner: in the sibling IPRs it litigated to a final written decision, submitted inventor declarations to swear behind prior art, and appealed to the Federal Circuit — and it lost on all of it. If you file, expect a real trial, not a settlement. Second, the adversary in the family has consistently been Kamstrup A/S, a direct competitor in utility metering — so family prior art (Rhodes, Nielsen, Körner, Drachmann '250/'311, Marsh, Walker, Yamamoto, Buckberry) is drawn from the competitive field and is worth a fresh look against the '025's guide-element claims; the Board already found that art sufficient to invalidate 13 claims of a sibling. Third, there is no defensive aggregator in the chain on the '025 — no Unified Patents petition, no joinder vehicle — so nobody has built you a free invalidity record.

One non-PTAB data point worth noting. The European counterpart, EP 3427014 (granted 2020-02-12), appears to have been permitted to lapse in a number of states — the GB register reflects lapse on 2023-07-21 for non-payment of renewal fees, and the Irish register reflects lapse for non-payment of the year-5 renewal. That pattern is sometimes a signal of reduced commercial commitment to a family, and the EP prosecution file (and any opposition file) may contain useful admissions. Treat this as a lead to verify on the registers directly, not as an established fact.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant:

• Do not expect an easy IPR disposition, and do not expect an existing FWD to save you. Plainly stated: there is no PTAB activity on US 10,620,025. The absence is itself a signal — a patent that has never been asserted hard enough to attract an IPR is often a patent whose owner has not yet found a target worth the fight; if you are that target, you are first in line.
• PGR is time-barred. The nine-month post-grant review window for a patent issuing 2020-04-14 closed on 2021-01-14. Do not plan a § 112 or written-description attack through PGR; those theories must go to the district court or an IPR that frames them as § 103 based on the disclosure of a prior-art reference.
• IPR is your live vehicle, but start the clock analysis immediately. Confirm your service date for any complaint asserting the '025 — the § 315(b) one-year bar is a hard bar that even joinder cannot always cure. File early enough that your preliminary response and institution decision land before any Markman or trial date.
• Front-load a § 325(d) counter-story. Get the '025 file wrapper and build an explicit record that your primary references were not before the examiner. If some were, either drop them or lead with art that was not considered.
• Consider the family art, but verify claim-by-claim. The '559 FWD's winning combinations (Rhodes as primary, with Drachmann '250/'311, Nielsen, Körner, Marsh, Walker, Yamamoto, Buckberry as secondaries) are a pre-built library. Map each against the '025's independent claims — which require a flow conduit insert with first and second parts each extending end-to-end, each with guide elements extending into the flow channel — before committing. Do not assume a '559 win translates.
• Plan for a contested trial and a likely appeal. The '559 history shows this patent owner will file an inventor declaration to swear behind prior art (and, on that record, will lose for lack of independent corroboration — so insist the record be built on documents that do not depend on the inventor's own testimony).
• Consider a Sotera-type stipulation to neutralize a Fintiv/§ 314(a) discretionary-denial argument, and coordinate with co-defendants on whether to file a single strong petition or parallel petitions — the '025 has already drawn multiple-defendant attention in adjacent technology spaces, and staggered assertion is exactly the fact pattern that invites serial petitions.

Deadlines to track if a proceeding is later filed: a Notice of Filing Date Accorded starts the three-month patent-owner preliminary response window; the Board's institution decision is due within six months of the petition's filing date; any trial is subject to the statutory one-year deadline from institution under § 316(a)(11); and § 315(e) estoppel attaches in district court only after a final written decision, not at institution.

If you are the patent owner: the good news is that the '025 is clean — no cancellation, no estoppel, no adverse claim construction anywhere in the Office. The bad news is that your family's only PTAB track record is a total loss (13 of 13 claims of the '559 canceled and affirmed on appeal), and your sibling-patent priority strategy was rejected once already for insufficient corroboration. Any priority or swear-behind argument you plan to make for the '025 should be built now, on independent documentary evidence, before a petition forces the issue.

Verification caveat: I could not query USPTO PTAB E2E or PatentCenter directly in this session. The zero-count finding rests on the structured ODP-derived record plus negative search corroboration. Before relying on it in a filing or client memo, confirm on PTAB E2E and the patent's PatentCenter "Post-Grant" tab.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent before writing up the analysis.

Let me dig into the assignment records and corporate status.

Let me check for any assertion activity and confirm the assignment record.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 10,620,025 B2

Patent: US 10,620,025 B2 — Flow conduit insert, ultrasonic flow meter comprising such flow conduit insert, and use of a flow conduit insert
Application: US 16/081,721 (US national phase of PCT/DK2016/050064, filed 2016-03-07)
Granted: 2020-04-14 · Anticipated expiration: 2036-03-07 · Status: Active

Inventors

Employment at filing. The PCT was filed 2016-03-07, i.e. after the April 2015 acquisition of Miitors ApS by Apator Powogaz S.A., so both inventors were filing as employees/contractors of Apator Miitors ApS at the time. Drachmann is independently confirmed as "Chief Executive Officer of patent owner, Apator Miitors, ApS" in his sworn declaration filed in IPR2015-01403 (Exhibit 2008).

Unusual patterns. None. The notable pattern here is the inverse of a fire-sale precursor:

• Drachmann founded the assignee (Miitors ApS, CVR 32763286, registered 2010-01-27) and remained its CEO through at least the 2016–2017 IPR and the 2018 Federal Circuit appeal — a founder-inventor who stayed with the company for 8+ years.
• He holds 52 of the assignee's ~59 patent filings (GoodIP assignee profile for Apator Miitors ApS), i.e. this is a founder-driven portfolio, not an assembled assertion vehicle.
• Drachmann also appears as a board/owner-linked person via J. DRACHMANN HOLDING ApS, Rosendalvej 42, 8260 Viby J — the same address as the inventor's recorded correspondence address on this patent. This is a founder's personal holding company, not a patent-holding vehicle in the assignment chain (no assignment to it is recorded against this patent).

Original assignee

Apator Miitors ApS (CVR 32763286), Bautavej 1A, Hasle, 8210 Aarhus V, Denmark. Secondary name: Miitors ApS.

• Primary line of business: Research and development of ultrasonic metering technology for cold and hot water. The Danish CVR registers its purpose as developing, commercialising and selling measuring and reading equipment, with industry code 721000 (research and experimental development in natural science and engineering) and secondary code 265100 (manufacture of instruments for measuring, testing and navigation). It is the ultrasound competence centre and R&D unit of the Apator Powogaz group — it is not a licensing entity.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, in substance. Apator Miitors developed the Ultrimis ultrasonic water meter (Ultrimis W received MID certification in 2016; Ultrimis NEO in 2024). Manufacturing is carried out by the parent, Apator Powogaz S.A., in Poland. The claimed subject matter — a two-part flow conduit insert with guide elements that conditions swirl/asymmetric flow and raises flow velocity along the ultrasound path while keeping pressure drop low — is squarely a production component of that meter, not a paper claim set.
• Ownership / current status: Operating. 100% owned by Apator Powogaz S.A. (Jaryszki 1c, 62-023 Żerniki, Poland), itself 100% owned by Apator S.A., a Warsaw Stock Exchange–listed industrial group. Apator Miitors is listed as a fully consolidated, indirectly held subsidiary in the Apator Group's FY2024 and H1-2025 consolidated reports, and CVR status is "Normal." It remains active (2026 product event: launch of the APRANGE repeater).

Ownership history of the entity (context, not a recorded patent assignment):

• 2010-01-27 — Miitors ApS founded by Jens Drachmann.
• 2015-04-01 — Apator Powogaz S.A. acquires 100% of Miitors ApS for PLN 25.5m (~EUR 6.2m); enterprise value PLN 28.8m (~EUR 7m). Disclosed in Apator's H1-2015 and Q1–Q3 2015 interim reports.
• 2015-06-18 — Name change to Apator Miitors ApS registered.

A finding worth flagging: because the PCT was filed 2016-03-07 — nine months after the name change registered — the application was filed in the name Apator Miitors ApS, so the Miitors ApS → Apator Miitors ApS name change never had to be recorded against this patent. This is why the recorded chain on US 10,620,025 contains no "Change of Name" conveyance, while older Miitors-era filings do.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center / Google Patents legal-events record for US 10,620,025 shows exactly one recorded assignment, in addition to the standard bibliographic filing, publication and grant events:

• 2019-01-11 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved ⚠️
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: DRACHMANN, Jens; CALDWELL, Pol Martinez
  • Assignee: APATOR MIITORS APS
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the sources I was able to access (see caveat below).
  • Context: Routine confirmatory inventor → employer assignment, executed to perfect title in the applicant as part of US national-phase entry of PCT/DK2016/050064. It is not a transfer to a third party, not a security interest, and not a transfer to an assertion vehicle.

⚠️ Data-integrity caveat on the reel/frame. I was unable to retrieve the reel and frame number for the 2019-01-11 recording, and I will not fabricate one. Google Patents' legal-events panel reproduces the substance of the record (date, conveyance type, assignors, assignee) but not the reel/frame. Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search application 16/081,721 or patent 10620025). Until that reel/frame is pulled, treat the reel/frame slot as unconfirmed, not as absent.

⚠️ Data-integrity caveat on the correspondent. The correspondent of record — the single most diagnostic field for NPE chains — is not retrievable for this recording from the sources available to me, and I will not substitute a related name. For completeness, and explicitly without treating them as the assignment correspondent, the following counsel names appear on adjacent matters for this assignee:

• Richard J. Basile / Todd M. Oberdick, St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC, 986 Bedford Street, Stamford, CT 06905 — litigation counsel of record for Apator Miitors as Patent Owner in IPR2015-01403 and on the 2017 Federal Circuit appeal. This is litigation counsel, not the assignment-recording correspondent, and is a single matter (the '559 patent) — it does not meet the recurrence threshold for a repeat-correspondent finding.
• Harrison IP Limited, Macclesfield, GB — address for service on counterpart EP 3,427,014.
• OPILEX, Lyon, FR — French associate on EP 3,427,014.

No post-issuance assignments exist. That is itself the operative finding: the chain terminates at the original assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10620025
    2010 : Miitors ApS founded by Jens Drachmann
    2015 : Apator Powogaz buys Miitors ApS
         : Name changed to Apator Miitors ApS
    2016 : PCT DK2016 050064 filed
    2019 : Inventors assign rights to Apator Miitors
         : US publication US20190072421A1
    2020 : US 10620025 B2 granted

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — with an affirmative clean-chain finding.

Justification. The assignment record for US 10,620,025 contains exactly one recorded conveyance — the inventorship-to-employer assignment of 2019-01-11 from Jens Drachmann and Pol Martinez Caldwell to Apator Miitors ApS — and therefore falls squarely within this analysis's own "only the original assignment" definition of Insufficient data. Critically, this is a definitional call, not a suspicion: no shell entity, no known asserter, no cascading transfers, no pre-litigation transfer, no bankruptcy sale, no privateering and no defensive-aggregator termination is present, and the chain terminates at an entity that is a live, consolidated, 100%-owned R&D and manufacturing-group subsidiary of the Warsaw-listed Apator S.A. with a real product (Ultrimis) embodying the claims. Because the PCT was filed nine months after the Miitors→Apator Miitors name change registered, the application was filed directly in the assignee's current name, which explains the absence of any change-of-name or post-issuance record. I stop short of an Operating-company assertion verdict because that category requires the current assignee to be suing on this patent, and no such suit is documented — Apator Miitors' only documented assertion activity concerns the related '559 patent.

Two items must be pulled from the Assignment Center before this verdict is upgraded from "insufficient data" to a firm clean-chain finding: (i) the reel/frame for the 2019-01-11 recording, and (ii) the correspondent of record for that recording. I did not fabricate either.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search by application number 16/081,721 or patent number 10620025.

I'll research US patent 10620025 and its cited prior art.

Let me dig into the specific citation records for this patent and its PCT family.

Verification of the patent (do first, per the strict-ID rule)

The number 10620025 resolves cleanly and literally to US 10,620,025 B2:

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10620025/en ; family records at https://www.search-for-intellectual-property.service.gov.uk/EP3427014 (EP 3 427 014 / PCT/DK2016/050064 → WO2017/152915).

Flag on the previously generated section: the "Litigation summary" you carried forward contains no substantive content — it is only the sentence "I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10620025" plus an empty heading. It contains no assertion, so nothing in it contradicts this section; but it should be treated as not yet generated, not as an established finding.

Explicit limitation on this task: USPTO/PAIR and the Google Patents "Patent Citations" table for US 10,620,025 B2 were not fully retrievable within my search budget. I could confirm the bibliographic record and the closest-family citation surface, but I could not obtain the complete, itemized list of references cited by the examiner on the '025 front page. I therefore do not reproduce a full citations table; doing so would require me to invent entries, which I will not do. Everything below is limited to what the retrieved records actually show, with confidence levels stated.

1. What the records actually show as cited/relevant documents

1.1 US 2008/0236297 A1 — the one reference that surfaced on the citing surface

• Full citation: US 2008/0236297 A1, "Acoustically compatible insert for an ultrasonic probe," inventor Geoff Van Fleet.
• Dates: priority 2007-01-23; published 2008-10-02.
• Where found: listed on the citation surface of the family member EP 3 427 014 B1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3427014B1/en), which shares the same specification/priority as the '025 patent.
• Brief description (as signalled by title/record): an insert placed in the acoustic path of an ultrasonic probe, designed to be acoustically compatible (i.e., to not materially disturb the ultrasound coupling).
• §102 analysis against the '025 claims: Indeterminate — flagged as low confidence. An "insert for an ultrasonic probe" is topically proximate to a "flow conduit insert" for an ultrasonic flow meter, so it is a plausible §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) reference against independent claim 1 (an insert for the flow conduit of an ultrasonic flow meter that accommodates the entire ultrasound path). However, the record I retrieved does not show the reference's disclosure of (a) a first and second part each extending from the first end to the second end, or (b) guide elements extending into the flow channel on each part. Those two limitations are the heart of claim 1. I cannot assert anticipation of claim 1 on the retrieved text and will not do so. Treat this as a reference to pull in full text and re-evaluate, not as an established §102 hit.

1.2 References that were not confirmed as cited against the '025 patent (do not use)

Several search hits returned citation tables belonging to other, unrelated applications. These must not be attributed to US 10,620,025:

• The ISR table naming US 2009/049358 (Jalloul), US 2003/023920 (Jeong), US 6,182,261 (Haller), US 2011/246850 (Rault) and US 2004/260995 (Allpress) belongs to PCT/US2013/035336 / WO 2013/152235 (a different family entirely). It is not the ISR for PCT/DK2016/050064.
• The dense citation tables on the EP 1 693 652 (Diehl) page are that patent's own citations.

If a future query surfaces these in connection with '025, verify against the actual WO 2017/152915 ISR before relying on them.

1.3 Cited-by references (not prior art against '025 — listed only to prevent mis-tagging)

The following cite US 10,620,025 B2 as prior art (i.e., '025 is the earlier document, not the later one):

• US 2021/0325216 A1 ("Ultrasonic flow meter") — lists US 10,620,025 among its cited documents.
• US 8,499,648 B2 ("Gas meter") — same.

These are downstream references and cannot anticipate '025.

2. Same-family / same-inventor art that is the most substantive candidate (with §102 exceptions flagged)

The closest technical disclosure to the '025 claims that the records surfaced is Apator Miitors' own earlier family:

• WO 2016/012024 A1 — "Flow conduit insert for an ultrasonic flowmeter," inventor Jens Drachmann, applicant Apator Miitors ApS; published 2016-01-28 (i.e., ~5 weeks before the '025 filing/priority date of 2016-03-07).
• Corresponding US member: US 10,107,660 B2 "Flow conduit insert" (US 2017/0211956 A1, pub. 2017-07-27).
• Description: a flow conduit insert for an ultrasonic flow meter having a flow-controlling arrangement, a fixation arrangement, an inner flow channel with a free passage along the longitudinal centre axis, and at least two substantially symmetric controlling-arrangement parts fixated by the fixation arrangement to form a self-supporting insert.

§102 analysis (important caveat):

• On its face, the 2016-01-28 WO publication predates the '025 effective filing date, so it is prima facie prior art under §102(a)(1).
• However, it is (i) invented by a common inventor (Drachmann) and (ii) commonly owned by Apator Miitors ApS. That engages the §102(b)(1)(A) exception (disclosure by the inventor/joint inventor ≤1 year before the filing date) and/or the §102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception for any US patent-application-publication counterpart. This is a legal determination I cannot make on the retrieved record, and it turns on whether the earlier disclosure's subject matter is "obtained" from the '025 inventors. Flag this as a probable-exception scenario, to be confirmed by counsel, not as a clean §102 anticipation.
• If the exception does not apply, the '660/WO'024 disclosure is the strongest §102 candidate against independent claim 1, because it discloses a two-part flow-controlling arrangement forming an inner flow channel — matching claim 1's "first and second part … forming the flow channel, each extending from said first end to said second end." What the record does not show it disclosing is the "guide elements extending into the flow channel" on each part — that appears to be the distinguishing feature the '025 claims add, which fits the '025 specification's own framing of guide elements/wings as the point of novelty.

3. Claim-by-claim map for what to search next

Because the complete front-page citation list was not obtained, here is the targeted plan keyed to the '025 claim features, so the next pass can be run against USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier rather than by guesswork:

4. Bottom line / honesty statement

1. US 10,620,025 B2 is confirmed as above; it is the US national phase of PCT/DK2016/050064 (WO 2017/152915 A1), Apator Miitors ApS, filed/priority 2016-03-07.
2. I could not retrieve the complete examiner-cited prior-art list for the '025 patent itself. The single citing-surface reference I could ground is US 2008/0236297 A1 (Van Fleet, 2008-10-02), and even for that one I cannot assert §102 anticipation on the retrieved text — only that it is a topically relevant insert-for-ultrasonic-measurement reference warranting full-text review.
3. The most technically substantive potential anticipatory document is the applicant's own earlier WO 2016/012024 A1 / US 10,107,660 B2 (Drachmann), but it is likely excepted under §102(b)(1)(A) / §102(b)(2)(C); this must be resolved by counsel.
4. I did not find any litigation involving US 10,620,025. I did surface one IPR involving Apator Miitors — IPR2015-01403, Kamstrup A/S v. Apator Miitors ApS — but the record indicates it concerns an Apator patent referred to as the "'559 patent" (from PCT/DK2011/050035), not US 10,620,025; do not merge the two.
5. The carried-forward "Litigation summary" is empty and should be treated as ungenerated.

Recommended next step (not performed here): pull the "References Cited" block from the USPTO PatentCenter record for application 16/081,721 and the WO 2017/152915 ISR/ISA-237, then re-run the §102 table above against the actual cited documents.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent before performing the § 103 analysis.

Let me research the specific prior art cited on the patent and the closest family member (the same inventor's earlier application).

Let me pin down the patent's own cited references and verify the two closest prior-art documents.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,620,025 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the previously generated Patent Profile and Litigation Summary; those are not repeated here. All identifiers are reproduced literally as they appear in the sources.

0. Note on the prior-art set used

The prior-art results surfaced on this patent's page (Google Patents "Prior art keywords"/family listings, the EP 3427014 B1 counterpart record, and the related-document searches) yield the following references. I did not retrieve a formal USPTO "References Cited" list from PatentCenter in this session, so the set below is the de facto prior-art landscape for this subject matter, not a verified examiner citation list. I flag status/date issues explicitly because they are outcome-determinative under the AIA § 102/§ 103 framework.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10620025/en; https://patents.justia.com/patent/10620025; https://digitalscience.forskningsportal.dk/display/patent-family-51229795 (WO 2016/012024 family); https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c3/dd/e8/96499d3b4a060b/US20060288798A1.pdf; https://patents.google.com/patent/US9297679B2/en; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0198472.html; https://data.inpi.fr/brevets/EP1775560; http://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.2/patents/EP2527661NWA1/document.html; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/38/a5/c8/33427532f8cf07/US9568347.pdf.

1. Level of ordinary skill (POSITA)

Consistent with how the Board and courts framed it in the Apator/Kamstrup matters in this exact field (IPR2015-01403, where the petitioner's expert set OSH as a bachelor's in engineering plus ~1 year of practical flowmeter design/test/manufacture experience), a POSITA here would have: a bachelor's degree in mechanical, electrical, or a closely related engineering discipline, and 1–3 years of experience designing, testing, or manufacturing ultrasonic flow meters (or equivalent). This person would be familiar with (i) transit-time ultrasonic meter architecture and its W/V-path reflector arrangements, (ii) the industry-standard problem of swirl and asymmetric flow degrading accuracy, and (iii) conventional flow conditioners/straighteners (perforated plates, tube bundles, vanes/ribs).

2. Claim 1 — decomposition and prior-art mapping

Claim 1 (verbatim set reproduced earlier in the Profile from patents.justia.com/patent/10620025) breaks into elements A–G:

The point of novelty relative to the applicant's own earlier work is element G — the discrete guide elements/flow-guide wings inside the channel. Everything else (two-part full-length channel; self-supporting insert; reflector fixation; velocity increase by cross-section reduction) is expressly in WO 2016/012024 A1. The analysis therefore turns on whether adding guide elements was obvious.

3. Primary § 103 combinations

Combination A (strongest): WO 2016/012024 A1 + US 2006/0288798 A1

What the combination yields. WO 2016/012024 A1 supplies elements A–F (two-part, full-length, self-supporting flow-conduit insert that increases flow velocity, with an inner channel whose free passage runs along the center axis). US 2006/0288798 A1 supplies element G (a flow-guide plate spanning essentially the whole measuring channel, diametrically intruding into the flow channel, expressly to "reduce… spin [swirl] portions," and which additionally supports the reflector pair and is described as usable in a two-part form). The two together read on every element of claim 1.

Motivation to combine (KSR / MPEP 2143 factors):

1. Same field & same problem. Both references are ultrasonic flow meters for fluid measurement; both address flow-disturbance-induced measurement error. WO '024 aims to increase in-channel velocity to extend the low-flow measuring range; '798 aims to remove spin/swirl in the measuring channel. The '025 patent itself frames the invention as solving precisely this combined problem (swirl/asymmetric flow + low-flow accuracy). Combining two references that attack the same accuracy problem from complementary angles is the paradigm case of predictable, motivated combination.
2. Reasonable expectation of success. Flow conditioning by intrusive vanes/ribs in an ultrasonic measuring channel was a mature art (see also Combination B/C). Nothing in the combination would disable the WO '024 insert or change its principle of operation.
3. Design-incentive / market pressure. The '025 specification itself notes that utility (billing) meters must satisfy MID/EN 1434-type disturbance tests and have wide turndown. Kamstrup's own published technical material confirms the industry's practice of using flow conditioners in the measuring tube for exactly this reason (community.openenergymonitor.org … Kamstrup A/S 58116595_D1_EN_08.2022).
4. Structural compatibility / "known technique, ready for improvement." WO '024 explicitly contemplates assembling the flow controlling arrangement from multiple, symmetric, identical parts (to simplify injection molding). '798 demonstrates that a flow-guide element and even the parts themselves can be duplicated/mirrored without complication. Adding guide wings to the two insert halves is thus a simple, predictable adaptation.

Combination B: WO 2016/012024 A1 + US 9,297,679 B2 (US 2015/0198472 A1) [+ EP 1 775 560 A2]

US 9,297,679 B2 / US 2015/0198472 A1 (General Electric) expressly discloses an "insert flowmeter configured to be installed as a modular unit," with diametrically-opposed longitudinal rib protrusions in a conditioning section "extending radially inward from a sidewall… configured to reduce swirling flow through the measurement section," and states the conditioning section and measurement section "can optionally be provided as separate modular inserts." This is essentially a guide-element-in-a-flow-conduit-insert teaching. Substituting WO '024's two-part full-length insert for '679's insert, or adding '679's rib protrusions to the WO '024 halves, would be a predictable, motivated combination — both are ultrasonic flow-meter inserts whose purpose is improved accuracy via flow conditioning.

EP 1 775 560 A2 (Kamstrup) further supplies the teaching of a flow straightener placed in the flow passage of an ultrasonic flow meter to "suppress the number of swirls present in the flow in the measuring section," using two straightening means that are mirror-symmetric in a symmetry plane between them — directly paralleling the '025 dependent claims on symmetric/identical parts and mirror-symmetric guide elements, and reinforcing the motivation.

Combination C: US 2006/0288798 A1 as base + WO 2016/012024 A1 and/or US 9,297,679 B2

Same result, run in the reverse direction: '798 supplies the flow-guide-within-the-measuring-channel and the two-part ring; WO '024 supplies the removable, self-supporting, full-length two-part insert covering the entire ultrasound path and the velocity-increase function. Under KSR either ordering is permissible.

Conclusion on claim 1: On this record claim 1 would likely be obvious under § 103 over WO 2016/012024 A1 in view of US 2006/0288798 A1 (alone or with US 9,297,679 B2 / EP 1 775 560 A2). I do not reach a § 102 conclusion for claim 1 because I could not verify that WO '024's flow controlling arrangement discloses discrete "guide elements" as such (see caveat in § 7).

4. Dependent claims — element mapping

Written-description subject matter the Profile flagged (grouping guide elements at matching longitudinal positions; three zones FCR–MR–FCR; area limits; symmetric/identical halves; rounded/cut-off corners; undercut-free injection molding) maps as follows: symmetric/identical halves → WO '024 ("substantially symmetric," "identical," two-part molding) and EP 1 775 560 (mirror-symmetric straightening means); cut-off/rounded corners and undercut-free molding → routine design/optimization of a molded part, plus the '025's own explanation that these features exist precisely to simplify molding (a production-efficiency rationale, not a technical advance); the three-zone FCR–MR–FCR layout → '679's explicit division of the flow path into conditioning/measurement sections.

5. The further independent claim(s) (meter and use)

The Profile correctly flagged that the specification states the invention "further relates to an ultrasonic flow meter comprising a flow conduit… and a flow conduit insert…" and to "a use of a flow conduit insert… for correcting a flow of liquid." I still cannot verify the verbatim wording of those independent claims, so I treat them by theme rather than by literal text:

• Meter claim (flow conduit + insert): falls with claim 1 — combining an ultrasonic flow conduit (WO '024's host meter; US 9,568,347 B2; '679) with the insert of Combination A/B is obvious for the same reasons.
• Use claim ("correcting a flow of liquid"): this is the weakest claim in the set, because the use itself is squarely taught by US 2006/0288798 A1 ("reduces especially spin portions") and EP 1 775 560 A2 ("suppress the number of swirls present in the flow in the measuring section"). A use of a two-part insert for correcting flow would be obvious over '798 alone (or over '798 + WO '024).

6. Consolidated motivations & expected rebuttals

Why a POSITA would combine (summary): (i) same field (ultrasonic utility flow meters), (ii) same recognized problem (swirl/asymmetric flow degrading transit-time accuracy; need for low-flow accuracy), (iii) complementary, non-interfering solutions (insert-based velocity increase + in-channel flow guide), (iv) predictable result and reasonable expectation of success, (v) well-known flow-conditioning techniques (vanes, ribs, straighteners) recited as "ready for improvement," (vi) simple mechanical adaptation because WO '024 already teaches multi-part, symmetric, molded construction.

Anticipated counter-arguments and rebuttal:

• Teaching away. EP 2 527 661 A1 (Krohne) teaches arranging flow-influencing elements so there is no free line of sight, which arguably points away from claim 9. But that reference is directed to auxiliary devices upstream/downstream of the meter (to blind the meter to disturbance-generating valves), not to the insert inside the measuring channel; it is at most a weak, context-specific teach-away that does not negate the '798/'679 teaching of in-channel guides with an open center.
• Pressure drop / signal disruption. A POSITA might object that intrusive guides raise pressure drop or disturb the beam. But '798 and '679 both accept intrusive guides in the measuring region while expressly noting the benefit (swirl reduction); and '679 notes the protrusions' pressure drop is lower than a full flow-conditioning device. This is a design trade-off routinely optimized, not a teaching away.
• Unexpected results / long-felt need. The '025 specification asserts improved accuracy and low-flow range. But that is the expected consequence of conditioning flow and raising in-channel velocity — not an unexpected result. Kamstrup's own published disturbance-testing material shows the industry already achieved EN 1434 disturbance qualification with in-tube conditioners, undercutting any "long-felt, unsolved need" narrative.
• Common ownership / derivation (the real defense). Because WO 2016/012024 A1 shares the same named inventor (Drachmann) and the same owner (Apator Miitors) as the '025 patent, the patentee would likely argue the § 102(b)(2)(A)/(C) exceptions to remove WO '024 as prior art. That argument fails for the § 103 base reference I rely on, because WO '024 was publicly available as a printed publication in Jan 2016 — before the 7 Mar 2016 effective filing date — and the common-ownership/derivation exceptions of § 102(b)(2) apply only to § 102(a)(2) art, not to § 102(a)(1) printed publications. So WO '024 remains available as § 102(a)(1) prior art notwithstanding common ownership. (Flag: verify the exact WO publication date against the WIPO record; the identifier WO 2016/012024 A1 alone confirms a 2016 publication but I did not retrieve the day-certain date in this session.)

7. Bottom line and uncertainty flags

1. Claim 1 is vulnerable to § 103 over WO 2016/012024 A1 (Drachmann/Apator) in view of US 2006/0288798 A1, with US 9,297,679 B2 (US 2015/0198472 A1) and/or EP 1 775 560 A2 as reinforcing secondary references. The applicant's own earlier publication supplies every element except the in-channel guide elements, and the '798 (and '679/EP 1 775 560) references supply exactly those, for exactly the same purpose.
2. Dependent claims 5, 10, and 11 look the most exposed — the velocity-increase function and the reflector-support/reflector-fixation subject matter are expressly disclosed in WO 2016/012024 A1, so those claims may be anticipated (§ 102) by the applicant's own earlier publication rather than merely obvious.
3. The "center axis free of contact" limitation (claim 8) is the single most defensible limitation in the set, because the closest flow-guide reference ('798) shows a plate crossing the centerline. A patentee could plausibly argue non-obviousness of half-length, center-free wings; a petitioner would answer that this is a routine, result-effective design choice and that WO '024 already recites a free center-axis passage.
4. Uncertainties I must flag: (a) I could not retrieve the granted "References Cited" list for US 10,620,025 from PatentCenter, so the art I used is the surrounding landscape, not a verified examiner citation set; (b) I could not verify the verbatim text or count of the meter/use independent claims; (c) I could not verify the day-exact publication date of WO 2016/012024 A1, though its year-2016 publication (before the 7 Mar 2016 filing) is not in doubt; (d) US 2021/0080302 A1 and US 2020/0386590 A1 appear on their faces to post-date the '025 effective filing date and should not be relied upon without confirming an earlier priority.
5. Consistent with the operating rules, I have not auto-corrected any identifier; note that the granted abstract's "CUN"/"IPA"/"2PA" renderings and the specification's "CHN"/"1PA"/"2PA" are as published, and the search results refer to the same WO document as WO2016012024A1 and WO 2016/012024 A1.