US 10698989

I'll search for this specific patent number and any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me dig into the litigation/PTAB and any Federal Circuit 2026 appeal activity involving this patent.

Let me check specifically whether the '989 patent appears in any 2026 Federal Circuit docket, and its reexamination status.

US Patent 10,698,989 (US10698989B2) — Analyst Summary

Scope note / verification: I searched for the exact identifier 10698989 (and 10,698,989) only. All bibliographic data below is taken from the Google Patents record for US10698989B2 (fetched 2026-09-18, i.e., the record text supplied to me), cross-checked against PTAB/reexamination and litigation documents surfaced in the searches. Where the two conflict or where I could not verify from a primary source, I say so explicitly rather than filling the gap.

---

1. Bibliographic data

2. Abstract (as issued)

"Systems and methods verifying a user during authentication of an integrated device. In one embodiment, the system includes an integrated device and an authentication unit. The integrated device stores biometric data of a user and a plurality of codes and other data values comprising a device ID code uniquely identifying the integrated device and a secret decryption value in a tamper proof format, and when scan data is verified by comparing the scan data to the biometric data, wirelessly sends one or more codes and other data values including the device ID code. The authentication unit receives and sends the one or more codes and the other data values to an agent for authentication, and receives an access message from the agent indicating that the agent successfully authenticated the one or more codes and other data values and allows the user to access an application."

Note a real internal inconsistency worth flagging: the abstract describes an "integrated device" + separate "authentication unit," whereas the issued claims are drafted around a smartphone that itself both verifies the user and wirelessly transmits the ID code. The specification's "integrated device" language does support a smartphone (it expressly lists "mobile phone (e.g. a cellular phone or smartphone), tablet, laptop, mp3 player, mobile gaming device, watch, key fob"), so the claim/abstract mismatch is likely deliberate continuation drafting rather than error.

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Method (smartphone-centric).

1. A smartphone receives an ID code from a third-party trusted authority, the code uniquely identifying that smartphone among many smartphones (i.e., the code is provisioned by the outside authority, not merely burned in at manufacture).
2. The smartphone persistently stores both that ID code and biometric data of a legitimate user — limited to (a) facial recognition, (b) a fingerprint scan, or (c) a retinal scan.
3. The smartphone captures scan data from a biometric scan using the smartphone itself.
4. The smartphone itself compares the scan data to the stored biometric data and determines whether they match.
5. If they match, the smartphone wirelessly transmits the ID code — and that code is then compared, by the third-party trusted authority, against that authority's own list of previously registered ID codes.
6. A transaction is completed if the trusted authority successfully authenticates the ID code, where the transaction involves accessing one of: a casino machine, keyless lock, ATM machine, web site, file, or financial account.

Gist: a self-contained biometric gate inside a phone, paired with third-party validation of a pre-registered device code, to unlock real-world/financial resources.

Claim 5 — Smartphone apparatus. The same invention expressed as a device: (i) persistent storage with an input that receives the ID code from the third-party trusted authority plus the user's biometric data (same three biometrics), uniquely identifying the phone; (ii) a validation module coupled to that storage with a scan pad that captures scan data and compares it to the stored biometric data; and (iii) a wireless transceiver that sends the ID code, upon a match, for comparison by the trusted authority against its registered codes, with the transaction completed on successful authentication (same enumerated transaction list).

Claim 7 — System. A two-actor system: (i) a smartphone that persistently stores the biometric data and the ID code received from the third-party trusted authority (code uniquely identifying the phone), is configured to indicate that biometric authentication is requested, and sends the ID code to the trusted authority upon a scan match; and (ii) the third-party trusted authority operated by a third party, storing a plurality of legitimate ID codes and authenticating the received code by comparison against that stored plurality. Transaction completed on successful authentication (same enumerated list).

Dependent claims: 2 (if no match, the phone indicates it cannot verify and does not send the ID code), 3 (transaction includes accessing an application), 4 (the trusted authority sends an indication of authentication to another party), 6 (ID code sent to the trusted authority over a network), 8 (on an authentication request, the smartphone requests the biometric scan; if unverifiable, it does not send the code), 9 (transaction includes accessing an application).

4. Litigation / administrative posture relevant to the '989 patent

• IPR2025-00600, Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC — patent number listed as 10698989, appl. 15049060. Filed 2025-03-18; status "Procedural Termination," terminated 2025-07-01 with a "Dismissal Prior to Institution of Trial." The petition relied on Ludtke (US 7,188,110), Nishida (EP 1478152) and related Proxense-family proceedings.
• Ex parte reexamination 90/015,054 — reexamining US 10,698,989; per Proxense's own Federal Circuit filing, a Reexamination Certificate issued 2025-03-19 (companion reexams 90/015,052 on US 8,352,730 issued 2026-01-29, and 90/015,053 on US 9,298,905 issued 2025-06-17).
• Proxense, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00210-ADA (W.D. Tex.) — the '989 patent was asserted (claims 1–6); resolved by consent judgment / stipulated dismissal with prejudice; no holding on validity or infringement of the '989 patent. Samsung's invalidity contentions and ex parte reexam requests targeted the family ('730, '905, '989, '188, '700).
• Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics (W.D. Tex., complaint dated 2024-05-31) — asserts the '989 patent (claims 1–6) via alleged contributory infringement by the "LG Pay App"; Google Patents also lists 6:24-cv-00143 and 6:24-cv-00302 in the Texas Western District as family litigation.
• IPR2021-01448 ("Not Instituted – Merits") is listed by Google Patents as litigation linked to this patent/family. I could not confirm from the sources retrieved that IPR2021-01448 specifically challenged the '989 patent (it may be directed to a sibling patent), so treat that attribution as unverified.

5. CAFC 2026 dockets — direct answer

I did not find any 2026 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket in which US 10,698,989 is the patent on appeal. The 2025–2026 Proxense Federal Circuit activity I could identify concerns a different patent, US 8,886,954 ("Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication," a sibling in the same family):

• Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 25-2168 (filed 2025-09-30), originating from IPR2024-00846, IPR2024-01334, IPR2024-00233.
• Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, Fed. Cir. No. 26-1025 (filed 2025-10-08), appellees [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) and Apple Inc.; designated companion to 25-2130.
• Proxense's opening brief dated 2026-04-03 argues the PTAB violated the Administrative Procedure Act by sua sponte staying the parallel ex parte reexamination (90/015,052, on the '730 patent) and treating the examiner's withdrawal of the Ludtke-based rejection as "moot," and challenges the PTAB's construction of "a third party that operates a trusted authority."

The '989 patent appears in those 2026 appeal papers only as a related proceeding — the brief's Rule 47.4 disclosure lists "Reexamination No. 90/015,054, reexamining U.S. Patent No. 10,698,989 – Reexamination Certificate issued Mar. 19, 2025."

6. Explicit uncertainties

1. Reexam outcome for the '989 claims is not fully pinned down. I confirmed a certificate issued 2025-03-19 in 90/015,054, but not, from a primary source, whether the '989 claims were confirmed as-is, confirmed as amended, or cancelled. A third-party litigation analysis (ExParte AI case summary for 6:21-cv-00210) states that "all asserted claims of the '905 and '989 patents were cancelled or disclaimed in post-filing administrative proceedings" — this is a secondary source, is stated loosely, and I could not corroborate it; treat it as unverified.
2. Term/expiry. Google Patents shows "Expired – Lifetime" with anticipated expiration 2025-12-20. This is a computed/assumed value, not a legal conclusion, and does not account for any PTA/PTE or terminal disclaimers.
3. Date context. The session header states today's date as 2026-04-26, while the patent record I was given was fetched 2026-09-18, and some search hits carry later 2026 dates. Any docket activity after 2026-04-26 would not be reflected in the "2026 docket" portions above.
4. Reference discipline. Every date, number and citation above refers strictly to US 10,698,989 / appl. 15/049,060 or to proceedings expressly naming it; the '730, '905, '954, '188, '700 and '042 patents are identified only because they are siblings/family members cited in the same proceedings and are not interchangeable with the '989 patent.

I'll research litigation involving US 10698989. Let me run several targeted searches.

Good leads. Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and look for all defendants.

I search-verified this against the Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portals, Docket Alarm, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia Dockets, RPX Insight, and the Google Patents family page. Here is what I can confirm for U.S. Patent No. 10,698,989 ("Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication"), assigned to Proxense, LLC (inventor John J. Giobbi; issued June 30, 2020 from App. No. 15/049,060).

I did not return results for any other "…989" patent (e.g., U.S. 5,032,989 or Transonic's '989 shunt-flow patent) — those are unrelated and excluded.

District court litigation asserting the '989 patent

Sources:

• Samsung: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6:21-cv-00210 ; https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/proxense-v-samsung-biometric-pdk-authentication-patents-patsnap/
• Apple: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2024cv00143/1172779468 ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-1172779468-proxense-v-apple
• LG: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68819741/proxense-llc-v-lg-electronics-inc/ ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2024cv00302/1172790008

PTAB proceedings on the '989 patent (administrative, not district-court litigation, but case-specific)

Sources: https://www.docketalarm.com/search/PTAB/dockets/?q= ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00600 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01448

Important caveats / limitations

• Claims of completeness: The Unified Patents "Family has litigation" panel on the Google Patents page for US10698989B2 lists only the Apple (6:24-cv-00143) and LG (6:24-cv-00302) Western District of Texas cases plus the IPR2025-00600 and IPR2021-01448 PTAB filings. However, the record also shows the Samsung W.D. Tex. case (6:21-cv-00210) asserted the same patent and family. I cannot rule out additional, less-indexed suits (e.g., in the ongoing Proxense v. Google, 6:23-cv-00320, and Proxense v. Microsoft, 6:23-cv-00319, cases) that may touch the '989 patent — I could not confirm within this session whether the '989 patent is asserted in those two cases, so treat their inclusion as unverified.
• Identifiers taken literally: Case numbers, IPR numbers, and patent numbers above are reproduced exactly as found; I did not normalize or "correct" any of them.
• Dates/statuses are as reflected in the cited dockets/portals as of the search date and may have changed; PACER/PTAB are authoritative for current status.
• Outcome characterizations: The Samsung disposition is reported as a consented dismissal rather than a litigated judgment; PatSnap (a blog/summary source) states the basis of termination as "Consent Judgment." Verify against the actual docket before relying on it.

If you need the complete docket history (e.g., confirmation of the Apple and LG stay orders, or the exact Samsung dismissal order and dates), the next step is a direct PACER pull for each of the three district-court cases and PTAB P-TACTS pulls for IPR2021-01448 and IPR2025-00600.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings referenced on this patent's Google Patents page and any others surfaced by search.

Let me dig into additional searches to confirm the full picture and check for other proceedings on the '989 patent.

PTAB Proceedings — US 10,698,989 ("Biometric Personal Data Key (PDK) Authentication")

Source note / discrepancy flagged up front. The structured ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt reports no AIA trial proceedings for US 10,698,989. That does not match the record. The patent's own Google Patents litigation metadata lists two PTAB cases, and independent docket sources confirm both. I have treated the two docket-confirmed proceedings as real and flagged the ODP gap rather than silently adopting "no activity." All proceeding numbers below come from cited docket pages — none are invented. Where I could not verify a detail (e.g., the identity of the panel that issued an institution denial that was never published in the snippet I could retrieve), I say so.

---

Proceedings overview

Two AIA proceedings on file — both Inter Partes Reviews, both terminated before institution, zero Final Written Decisions, and therefore zero claims canceled or sustained on the merits. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settlement terminations / 2 institution denials and procedural terminations (IPR2021‑01448 = "Not Instituted – Merits"; IPR2025‑00600 = "Procedural Termination"). Bottom line for a defendant: all nine claims of the '989 patent are untested at the Board. This is neither "hardened by surviving two IPRs" nor "invalidated." Two sophisticated petitioners (Samsung, then Apple) tried, and the Board twice never reached the merits — so the patent carries no PTAB estoppel and no PTAB validity holding in either direction, and the whole prior-art universe remains open to you.

---

IPR2021-01448 — [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) v. Proxense, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-08-26
• Status: Verbatim: "Not Instituted - Merits" (per the patent's Google Patents proceeding list) / "Institution Denied" (per the proceeding portal). Plain English: the Board reviewed the petition and the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response and refused to open trial. Terminated 2022-02-28. Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01448 and https://patents.google.com/patent/US10698989/en
• Judge panel: Reported as David McKone, Kevin Turner, Thu Dang, and Justin Arbes (docket listing). The 2021-12-07 conference order covering IPR2021‑01438/‑01439/‑01444/‑01447/‑01448 was signed by Thu A. Dang, Justin T. Arbes, and David C. [McKone] — treat the merits-panel composition as reported, not confirmed from the face of the denial.
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness. Exhibits show a Dr. Wolfe declaration and the art collection Scott (Ex. 1005), Lapsley (Ex. 1007), Berardi (Ex. 1010), Shreve (Ex. 1012), Kinoshita (Ex. 1013), Schneier (Ex. 1014), plus the '989 prosecution history. The petition was one of a set of five Samsung IPRs filed the same day against Proxense patents ('188, '700, '730, '905, '989). Caveat: the exhibit list I could retrieve does not itself state the challenged claim set; I will not assert "claims 1–9" as established fact for this petition.
• Institution decision: Denied, 2022-02-28 (Paper 11). The denial turned on claim construction and was dispositive against the petitioner. Per Samsung's later district-court filing describing the parallel decisions: the Board determined Samsung "had not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims based on a claim construction position advocated by Proxense in its Preliminary Response," and the Board construed "third-party trusted authority" to mean "a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction," after which "the prior art references which Samsung presented in the IPRs did not teach this construction." ⚠️ Sourcing caveat: that quoted construction appears in the Board's decision in the parallel IPR2021‑01444 ('730 patent), cited by Samsung as applying across the group ("e.g."). Because '989 claim 1 recites "third-party trusted authority" verbatim, the same construction governs the '989 claim — but I cannot confirm from the retrieved text that Paper 11 in IPR2021‑01448 used identical language. Verify against the '989 Paper 11 before quoting it in a brief.
• Final Written Decision: None. Trial was never instituted.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The proceeding was terminated by the denial itself. The docket shows a petitioner refund request (2022-10-24) and refund approval (2022-10-31) — consistent with non-institution and the return of the post-institution fee.
• Appeal: None identified. A petitioner cannot appeal a non-institution decision (35 U.S.C. § 314(d)); no Federal Circuit docket was found.
• Defensive value: This denial is not a validity win and gives you no estoppel cover — no institution means no § 315(e) estoppel and no merits holding. What it does give you is a road map: (1) the Board's construction of "third-party trusted authority" as an entity separate from the parties to the transaction is the pressure point on claim 1, and (2) Samsung's Scott/Lapsley-based combination was held insufficient under that construction. If your art shows the authenticating authority is a party to the transaction (e.g., the merchant's or issuer's own server), you are arguing inside the construction Proxense successfully ran in 2021 — and that is exactly the opening Samsung tried to exploit in district court afterward.

---

IPR2025-00600 — Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-03-18
• Status: Verbatim: "Procedural Termination." Institution date: N/A; termination date: 2025-07-01. Plain English: the proceeding ended before the Board ever decided institution. Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00600 (also listed on https://patents.google.com/patent/US10698989/en)
• Judge panel: Not publicly identified in the material retrieved — the case never instituted, so no merits panel was constituted. Do not assume a panel.
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness against claims 1–9 (the full claim set), on two grounds:
  • Ground 1 — Ludtke (U.S. Patent No. 7,188,110) in view of Baird (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0075230): Ludtke's "privacy card" stores fingerprint data plus a device ID and sends its ID to a "transaction processing clearing house" on a biometric match; Baird supplies the smartphone.
  • Ground 2 — Burger (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0050367) in view of Baird: Burger's "Pocket Vault" sends an encrypted chip ID to a network server after a fingerprint match; Baird supplies the smartphone.
  • Apple also briefed § 325(d) and discretionary-denial (Fintiv / settled-expectations) issues, citing the '989's ex parte reexamination and the Samsung and Google/Apple Proxense proceedings as EX1011–EX1014, EX1018.
    (Grounds description drawn from the public petition-analysis summary at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00600/doc/summary/2; the underlying petition and exhibit list are on the proceeding portal.)
• Institution decision: None issued — the case terminated procedurally first (docket reflects a Motion to Terminate). No Board reasoning to report; I will not characterize a denial that never happened.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated 2025-07-01 on a procedural motion before institution. The record I retrieved does not state the terms or even confirm the reason — pre-institution terminations are commonly settlement- or withdrawal-driven, but I have no document establishing either here. Treat the basis as not established from public record; if you need it, pull the termination order from PTAB E2E. Any settlement would in any event be confidential business information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
• Appeal: None identified (nothing appealable — no institution, no FWD).
• Defensive value: Low direct value, real indirect value. No estoppel attaches — Apple is not barred from re-asserting anything, and neither are you (§ 315(e) estoppel requires an instituted IPR that reaches a final written decision). But Apple's Ludtke+Baird and Burger+Baird combinations, with the Stephen Gray declaration, are now public prior-art packages you can lift for an invalidity contention or a fresh IPR. Note the asymmetry: Apple's petition argued its art does satisfy the "separate entity" construction of "third-party trusted authority" — a direct answer to the theory that beat Samsung in 2021, and one the Board never got to test.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: nothing is canceled; nothing is sustained. IPR2021‑01448 never instituted; IPR2025‑00600 terminated procedurally before institution. Claims 1–9 of US 10,698,989 are all UNTESTED at the PTAB — the independent method claim (1), the independent smartphone apparatus claim (5), the independent system claim (7), and dependents 2–4, 6, 8, 9. No FWD has ever issued on this patent, and there is no PTAB paper that holds any '989 claim invalid or valid. Anyone telling you "the PTAB already killed the '989 claims" is wrong; anyone telling you "the PTAB already blessed the '989 claims" is equally wrong. Family-level context is more sobering for the patent owner — sibling patents sharing the "device ID code + secret decryption value" architecture have taken real hits (Google/Apple on the '954 and '905, Microsoft on other Proxense patents, with adverse judgments entered in the '905 proceedings) — but none of those rulings is a '989 ruling, and '989's claims are drafted around a smartphone receiving its ID code from a third-party trusted authority, which is a different limitation than its siblings.

Estoppel landscape: effectively wide open. Because neither '989 proceeding was instituted, § 315(e)(1)/(2) estoppel does not apply to Samsung, Apple, or their privies — nothing bars them from raising the same art in the district court or a new petition, and nothing is imputed to you. Two live consequences: (a) the art Samsung found after the denials (Samsung got leave to add three new references precisely because the Board's construction was a "new development") and the art Samsung/LG/Apple are litigating in W.D. Tex. is all still available; and (b) Apple's Ludtke/Baird/Burger packages are fully preserved. The one hard constraint you inherit is jurisprudential, not statutory: any § 103 theory on claim 1 or claim 7 that does not show the authenticating "third-party trusted authority" to be an entity separate from the parties to the transaction runs into the construction that defeated Samsung in 2022.

Pattern signals. This is a repeat-target patent: two different large operating companies petitioned it (Samsung, 2021; Apple, 2025), on top of an ex parte reexamination (Apple cited App. No. 90/015,054 in its petition — ⚠️ I could not independently confirm which Proxense patent that reexam covers; verify before relying on it as a '989 fact). Both times the Board terminated before the merits — once via denial, once procedurally. No defensive aggregator has filed on the '989 itself: the "Unified Patents" attribution on the patent's Google Patents page is a data-source attribution (the Unified Patents PTAB portal is the docket host), not a petitioner — the portal page identifies the petitioner as Apple Inc. Unified's involvement with Proxense is a separate PATROLL crowdsourcing contest on U.S. 9,251,332, a different patent. On the appellate side, Proxense has been active (its 2026 appellate opening brief in Proxense v. Apple/Microsoft is on the IP fray docket); that activity concerns other patents, not the '989. Also material to posture: the '989's anticipated expiration is 2025-12-20 per Google Patents, and its legal status shows "Expired – Lifetime." As of today (2026-09-18) the patent appears to be past term — so the assertion exposure is past damages within the § 286 lookback window, not ongoing infringement.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Do not brief "the PTAB invalidated the '989." It didn't. Pull IPR2021‑01448, Paper 11 (2022-02-28) from PTAB E2E and read the actual '989 denial language — I have flagged that the "separate entity" construction quote is sourced to the parallel '730 decision (IPR2021‑01444). Quote the '989 paper, not its sibling.
2. Attack on the construction, not around it. The '989 claim 1 / claim 7 limitation "third-party trusted authority" was construed as an entity separate from the parties to a transaction. Your § 103 combinations (and your invalidity contentions) should either (a) map the authenticating entity squarely outside the transacting parties, à la Apple's Ludtke/Baird and Burger/Baird theories, or (b) seek a Phillips construction in the district court distinguishing proffered art on the same term. Proxense has a documented history of shifting its construction position between forums — Samsung filed a leave-to-amend brief making exactly that point — so pin them to a single construction early.
3. Use the expired/expiring posture. Confirm the expiration date and any PTA on the face of the patent and via PatentCenter. If term has run, negotiate from past-damages-only exposure (six-year lookback) and press the § 286 bar and any laches-style narrative.
4. No active PTAB clock to manage on this patent. There is no instituted trial, so no institution deadline, no oral hearing, and no statutory one-year FWD deadline running. If you intend to file your own IPR, you are starting from zero — and you should anticipate discretionary-denial pushback: the Director has been granting Proxense-style "settled expectations" denials (see Intel Corp. v. Proxense LLC, IPR2025‑00327/‑00328/‑00329, Paper 12 (Director June 26, 2025), denying institution on Proxense patents aged "over nine years"). Address § 314(a)/325(d) and the settled-expectations line head-on in the petition, or you may be denied without ever reaching the merits.
5. The absence of any FWD is itself the signal. A patent twice petitioned and twice never instituted is one that no tribunal has ever tested on the merits — which cuts both ways, but means the validity question is genuinely open and worth pricing as such.

Unverified items I did not invent and would confirm before relying on: the exact claim set challenged in IPR2021‑01448; the merits panel for IPR2021‑01448 as distinct from the conference panel; the reason for the 2025‑07‑01 termination of IPR2025‑00600; and the subject patent of ex parte reexam App. No. 90/015,054.

I'll research the assignment/ownership chain for US 10,698,989. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and the Proxense ownership/entity history.

Let me try to pin down the actual reel/frame records and Proxense corporate history.

I was able to pull substantial data on the chain, but not the raw reel/frame numbers. Here is the reconstruction, with the gaps flagged explicitly.

---

Inventors

• The '989 patent names only Giobbi. (Related Proxense patents add co-inventors — David L. Brown, Fred S. Hirt, Ryan Gallivan, Kent Yundt — but I could not confirm any co-inventor on the '989 patent itself; treat the single-inventor listing as confirmed and the co-inventor names as belonging to sibling patents only.)
• Unusual pattern — inventor/owner identity collapse, not inventor flight. The classic "all inventors quit the assignee within 12 months" pre-fire-sale tell is not present. Instead the signal is the opposite: the sole inventor is the founder and controlling principal of the assignee, and he executed the assignment to his own company. This makes the ownership chain short and clean but also means one natural person controlled the entire monetization decision.

---

Original assignee

Proxense, LLC — Bend, Oregon. Named as assignee on the issued '989 patent; listed as "current assignee" by Google Patents.

• Primary line of business: Development of the "Personal Digital Key" (PDK) — a portable wireless biometric-authentication device (essentially the subject matter of the '989 claims). Proxense was a venture-stage startup around the 2008–2013 period (media coverage beginning mid-2008 per Proxense's own complaint allegations).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear/weak. There is evidence of a developed PDK platform and industry press, but no evidence in the record I retrieved of sustained commercial sales of an accused-claim-practicing product. Proxense is now characterized by Unified Patents as "NPE (Small Company)."
• Current status: Not dissolved, not in bankruptcy — operating as a patent-monetization/assertion entity headquartered in Bend, OR, litigating in the Western District of Texas. Google Patents legal status reads "Expired – Lifetime" with an anticipated expiry of 2025-12-20 (a function of the 2005 parent filing and terminal disclaimers tying '989 to U.S. 8,352,730 / 8,886,954).

---

Assignment timeline

⚠️ Important sourcing limitation: I could not retrieve the underlying Assignment Center reel/frame numbers or the recorded correspondent for this session. The public aggregator layer (Google Patents legal events) surfaces the ownership event but not the reel/frame, and direct Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov querying was not reachable before my tool budget expired. The reel/frame fields below are therefore left blank rather than guessed — populating them would require a direct pull at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/. Do not treat the absence of a reel/frame as absence of a record.

2016-06-27 (recorded) — Reel / (not retrieved)

• Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)") — per Google Patents legal events.
• Assignor: John J. Giobbi
• Assignee: Proxense, LLC
• Correspondent: not retrieved from the assignment record. That said, the prosecution correspondent of record for this exact family is highly consistent and worth flagging as a lead: Patent Law Works (address of record: Patent Law Works/Proxense, 165 South Main St, Suite 2, Salt Lake City, UT 84111), with Matthew M. Holmes appearing as the signing attorney on the terminal disclaimer/fee transmittals for the parent 14/521,982 (attorney docket 10001-04540 US; the '989 family carries docket numbers of the form 10001-03653 US, 10001-4540 US). If the recorded assignment correspondent is Patent Law Works / Holmes, that is a recurring correspondent across the family — but I have not confirmed the correspondent on the assignment instrument itself, so this remains a lead, not a finding.
• Context: Internal/affiliate assignment — inventor-to-company, consistent with a founder transferring title to his own operating entity. Not a fire-sale and not a transfer-to-asserter.

Earlier, pre-issuance links (inferred, not confirmed): The '989 patent is a continuation (15/049,060 ← 14/521,982 ← 13/710,109 ← 11/314,199, filed 2005-12-20). There is almost certainly a 2005/2006-era Giobbi→Proxense assignment covering the original application 11/314,199, and possibly short corrective/confirmatory records for the intermediate continuations. I could not confirm any of these and am not asserting them.

No records found indicating: a transfer to a separate IP-holding LLC, a security agreement/lien, a merger, a change of name, a release, or a sale to a third party. On the evidence available, the '989 patent has never left Proxense's hands since the 2016-06-27 assignment, and the current assignee of record is Proxense, LLC.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10698989
    2004 : Provisional filed by Giobbi
    2005 : Parent app 11314199 filed
    2016 : Continuation 15049060 filed
         : Assigned to Proxense LLC
    2020 : Patent 10698989 issued
    2021 : First assertion vs Samsung
    2024 : Assertions vs Apple and LG
    2025 : Anticipated expiry

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The chain terminates at Proxense, LLC, the same entity that was the original assignee and the original developer of the PDK. No "IP / Holdings / Ventures / Licensing" successor LLC appears; no registered-agent-service address appears in the chain. (The Bend, OR operating address and the Salt Lake City, UT prosecution correspondent are not shell signals.) The failure here is a failed operating company dynamic, not a shell spin-out.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present (moderate). Proxense, LLC is not on the classic listed NPE rosters (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Vringo, etc.), but Unified Patents classifies Proxense as "NPE (Small Company)", and Proxense is a demonstrable high-frequency plaintiff: W.D. Tex. suits against Samsung (6:21-cv-00210), Microsoft (6:23-cv-00319), Google (6:23-cv-00320), Apple (6:24-cv-00143), Intel (6:24-cv-00283), LG (6:24-cv-00302), and Hyundai/Kia/Genesis (2025). Standing alone this is a behavioral asserter signal rather than an assignee-name match.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. I could only partially evidence this. The prosecution-side correspondent Patent Law Works / Matthew M. Holmes recurs across the patented family (docket series 10001-xxxxx US; Salt Lake City address), which is a candidate repeat-correspondent pattern — but I could not confirm the correspondent of record on the assignment instruments themselves, and there is only one visible ownership record to recur across. A single appearance is not a finding; this needs a direct Assignment Center pull.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. No chain of LLCs; no transfers at all beyond the single 2016 inventor-to-company record. The ownership has been static at Proxense since 2016.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The only dated assignment (2016-06-27) precedes the first assertion (Samsung, 2021-03-05) by roughly 4.7 years — well outside the 6-month window. There is no evidence the chain was timed to enable a suit.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present / no evidence. No Chapter 7/11, no §363 sale, no sale-in-proceedings found for Proxense.
7. Privateering — Not present. Proxense is asserting on its own behalf, not as a proxy asserting an operating company's patents against that company's competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN.

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification: the ownership chain is short and terminates at Proxense, LLC, the assignee of record since the 2016-06-27 Giobbi→Proxense assignment, and Proxense is independently classified by Unified Patents as an "NPE (Small Company)" while functioning as a serial plaintiff (Samsung 6:21-cv-00210; Apple 6:24-cv-00143; LG 6:24-cv-00302, plus Microsoft/Google/Intel/Hyundai-Kia). That is one strong signal; I found no shell-transfer, cascade, bankruptcy, pre-litigation-transfer, privateering, or defensive-aggregation evidence, and the recorder/correspondent recurrence is unconfirmed — hence moderate, not high. The picture is a failed product company's patents being asserted by the remnant entity, not a classic manufactured shell chain.

Verification / next steps (required to close the gaps):

• USPTO Assignment Center, search by patent number 10698989: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (indexed at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) — retrieve the reel/frame and the recorded correspondent for the 2016-06-27 record, and check for any 2005/2006 records on app. 11/314,199 and the intermediate continuations that I could not confirm.
• Google Patents legal events for US10698989B2 (source of the 2016-06-27 event): https://patents.google.com/patent/US10698989B2/en
• Unified Patents NPE classification: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/10698989 and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/[ptab](/ptab)/case/IPR2025-00600

Caveat on consistency with the prior litigation section: this section is consistent with the earlier litigation summary (Samsung 6:21-cv-00210; Apple 6:24-cv-00143; LG 6:24-cv-00302; IPR2021-01448; IPR2025-00600). No contradiction found. The one new item here is the source-side observation that Google Patents records a 2016-06-27 Giobbi→Proxense, LLC assignment — an ownership event the litigation summary did not address.

I'll research the prior art landscape for US 10,698,989, starting with the patent's own citation record and the key references cited during prosecution and in the PTAB proceedings.

I now have the key leads. Let me investigate the specific prior-art references relied on in the IPRs and the most-cited references on the patent face.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,698,989 B2

"Biometric Personal Data Key (PDK) Authentication" · Inventor: John J. Giobbi · Assignee: Proxense, LLC · App. No. 15/049,060 · Filed 2016-02-20 · Issued 2020-06-30 · Claimed priority 2004-12-20.

---

1. Scope, method, and honesty note

You asked me to "look at each patent citation" for the '989 patent. The Google Patents authority record lists 748 cited references on this family alone, plus the examiner-cited art on the issued face of the sibling patents. It is not possible to individually characterize all 748 within this session, and doing so would produce mostly low-relevance boilerplate. Instead I have:

1. Identified and characterized the references that were actually asserted against the '989 patent in the PTAB petitions and district-court invalidity contentions (these are the highest-signal references, because a petitioner has already staked a theory on them); and
2. Characterized the examiner-cited references that map onto the distinctive elements of claims 1 and 5–9 (biometric comparison on a portable device → wireless transmission of an ID for external comparison/authentication).

Where I could not verify a reference's content or dates within this session, I say so explicitly rather than filling it in. The two references I could not independently open — Baird (US 2006/0075230) and Burger (US 2005/0050367) — are flagged below.

Also note: no search result contradicted the patent text you supplied; where the two overlapped (claims, citation lists, PTAB case numbers) they agreed.

---

2. Critical framing: the § 102 window depends on which priority date sticks

This matters more than any individual reference, because it determines what is even eligible prior art.

• Proxense asserts the '989 claims are entitled to December 20, 2004 (the provisional filing).
• Samsung's invalidity contentions expressly dispute this, arguing Proxense "has failed to show that any of the Asserted Claims are entitled to a priority date earlier than the filing of the applications that issued as the asserted patents," and reserving art up to the later dates. (See Samsung's Final Invalidity Contentions, Ex. 2011 in IPR2021-01438/01439, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2021-01438/.)
• The current '989 claims recite a "smartphone" and an "ID code … received … from a third-party trusted authority" — limitations that the litigants argue may not be supported by the 2004 disclosure. If the claims do not get the 2004 date, references filed/published between 2004 and the 2016 filing (e.g., the 2006 WMS Gaming wagering-machine art) become § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) prior art.

So each reference below should be read with two applicable-date hypotheses in mind. I note dates precisely for that reason.

---

3. Tier 1 — References actually asserted against the '989 patent

These come from the Apple IPR2025-00600 petition (Apple Inc. v. Proxense LLC), whose grounds I retrieved from the petition-analysis record:

"Ground 1: Claims 1-9 are obvious over Ludtke in view of Baird — Prior Art Relied Upon: Ludtke (Patent 7,188,110) and Baird (Application # 2006/0075230)."
"Ground 2: Claims 1-9 are obvious over Burger in view of Baird — Burger (Application # 2005/0050367) and Baird (Application # 2006/0075230)."
Source: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00600/doc/summary/2

⚠️ Two procedural caveats (do not over-read these as invalidity findings):

• These were raised as § 103 obviousness combinations, not pure § 102 anticipation. The task asks which claims each reference "potentially anticipates under § 102"; strictly, these references were pleaded as § 103 combinations, though each may independently disclose elements.
• IPR2025-00600 was terminated procedurally (July 1, 2025; per the earlier litigation section), and the earlier Samsung IPR2021-01448 was Not Instituted on the merits. So no PTAB institution has ever tested these grounds on the '989 patent. Treat the petition as advocacy, not adjudication.

3.1 — Ludtke (US 7,188,110 B1) — primary reference, Ground 1

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 7,188,110 B1, "Secure and convenient method and apparatus for storing and transmitting telephony-based data," Harold Aaron Ludtke et al., Sony Corporation.
• Dates (verified): App. No. 09/734,839, filed December 11, 2000; issued March 6, 2007.
• Description (verified): "A method of identifying an authorized user with a biometric device and enabling the authorized user to access private information over a voice network is disclosed." (https://FreePatentsOnline.com/7188110.html; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-7188110-B1)
• Relevance: Biometric device identifies an authorized user and gates access to private information/transactions. Because its Dec. 2000 filing predates even the 2004 priority date, it qualifies as § 102(e)/§ 102(a) prior art under either priority hypothesis.
• Claims potentially affected: The petition maps Ludtke to the core of claims 1–9. Most concretely it bears on the "compare local biometric scan → enable access/transaction" spine (claim 1 elements (c)–(g)).

3.2 — Burger (US 2005/0050367 A1) — primary reference, Ground 2

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0050367 A1, Burger (published March 3, 2005; per numbering).
• Dates: Publication number verified via the Apple petition record; I could not independently confirm the filing date or full title in this session — flag for verification.
• Description: The petition treats Burger as disclosing "the fundamental authentication method" analogously to Ludtke. I could not open the specification, so I cannot describe its disclosure at the element level.
• Note: Burger's ~2005 publication date sits just after the 2004 priority date, so its § 102 status is entirely priority-dependent (it would be § 102(e) art only if filed before the critical date, or § 102(a)(1) art if the claims lose the 2004 date).

3.3 — Baird (US 2006/0075230 A1) — secondary reference in both grounds

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0075230 A1, Baird (published April 6, 2006).
• Dates: Publication number verified via the Apple petition record; filing date and title not independently confirmed in this session.
• Description: Used as the secondary reference in both grounds; the petition's structure (primary + Baird) implies Baird supplies one or more elements the primary references lack (commonly, the network/remote-authentication or smartphone aspect). I cannot confirm which element without the spec.
• Note: A 2006 publication is presumptively outside the 2004 window; it becomes available only if the claims are denied the 2004 priority date (or if Baird's own filing date precedes the critical date).

Bottom line for Tier 1: The single reference with clean, verified, priority-proof dates is Ludtke (filed Dec. 2000). Ludtke + the examiner-cited fob/card art is, in my assessment, the strongest § 102-style attack on the broad biometric-verification-and-transmit concept.

---

4. Tier 2 — Examiner-cited references that map onto the distinctive claim elements

These references carry the examiner-citation marker on the patent face (indicated by * in the Google Patents record). They are all pre-2004 and therefore clear § 102(a)/(b)/(e) art under either priority hypothesis.

4.1 — US 6,041,410 A — "Personal identification fob" — the single most on-point reference

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,041,410, "Personal identification fob," Hsu, Ling, Messenger, Evans, TRW Inc.
• Dates (verified): Filed December 22, 1997; issued March 21, 2000.
• Description (verified): A handheld fob contains a biometric sensor (fingerprint), a stored reference biometric image, and a correlator. If the scanned fingerprint matches the stored reference, the fob generates a numerical value (a CRC derived from the stored reference image), encrypts it, and wirelessly transmits it to a remote "door" along with user identification data. The door compares the received value against one stored during a prior registration in which the user presented separate ID. Protected properties expressly include a car, building, room, and an automatic teller machine (ATM). (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6041410A](/patent/US6041410A); EP 0924656 A3 family member.)
• § 102 mapping:
  • Claim 1 elements (b) store biometric + code on the device; (c) scan; (d) compare; (e) determine match; (f) wirelessly send code for comparison against a previously registered value held by the receiving party — all strongly disclosed.
  • Weaknesses as pure anticipation of claim 1: (i) it is a fob, not a smartphone; (ii) the transmitted value is generated by the fob, not an "ID code received … from a third-party trusted authority"; (iii) the comparing "door" is the resource-holder, not styled a third-party trusted authority.
  • Best target: Because claim 1 requires the ID code to be received from a trusted authority, US 6,041,410 alone is better characterized as anticipating the broader concept than as a clean § 102 hit on claim 1 as written. It is a near-perfect § 103 primary reference.

4.2 — US 6,325,285 B1 — "Smart card with integrated fingerprint reader"

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,325,285 B1, "Smart card with integrated fingerprint reader," Baratelli, AT&T Corp.
• Dates (verified): Filed November 12, 1999; issued December 4, 2001.
• Description (verified): A smart card containing a CPU, memory, and a fingerprint reader. On insertion, the card creates a representation of the user's fingerprint, compares it to a stored representation, and enables the card on a match, granting access to information/services. Notably, the memory portion storing the fingerprint may be disabled so it cannot be written again (write-once / tamper-resistant storage). (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6325285B1](/patent/US6325285B1))
• § 102 mapping:
  • Strong on claim 1/5 elements (b) persistent/write-once storage of biometric data (its "disabled so … may not be written to again" teaching is directly on point for "persistently storing … in a tamper-resistant format"), (c)–(e) local compare/match.
  • Weaknesses: contact-based (no wireless transmission for third-party comparison); no "ID code received from a third-party trusted authority"; no smartphone.
  • Best target: Claim 5's "persistent storage … storing the biometric data" limitation; claim 1's "persistently storing biometric data … in a tamper-resistant format."

4.3 — US 5,623,552 A — "Self-authenticating identification card with fingerprint identification"

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,623,552, Davis, Cardguard International, Inc.
• Dates (verified from the citation list): Filed 1994-01-21; issued 1997-04-22.
• Description: A self-contained card with an on-card fingerprint sensor that reads a user's fingerprint, compares it to a stored reference, and self-authenticates the bearer.
• § 102 mapping: Claim 5's on-device sensor + comparison; supports the "scan pad to capture scan data" and "validation module comparing scan data to biometric data" elements. Weak on wireless/trusted-authority elements.

4.4 — US 5,598,474 A — "Process for encrypting a fingerprint onto an I.D. card"

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 5,598,474, Neldon P. Johnson.
• Dates (verified): Filed 1994-03-29; issued 1997-01-28. (Examiner-cited *.)
• Description: Encrypts a fingerprint onto an ID card — relevant to storing biometric data in a protected/encrypted ("tamper-resistant") form.
• § 102 mapping: Claim 1 "persistently storing biometric data … in a tamper-resistant format"; the patent's own text says data "can be stored in an encrypted form."

4.5 — US 6,016,476 A — "Portable information and transaction processing system and method utilizing biometric authorization and digital certificate security"

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,016,476, Maes et al., IBM.
• Dates (verified): Filed 1997-08-11; issued 2000-01-18.
• Description: A portable information/transaction device that uses biometric authorization plus digital-certificate security to authorize transactions.
• § 102 mapping: Combines portable-device biometric activation + transaction authorization — relevant to claims 1, 3, 7, 9 ("transaction … includes accessing an application / financial account"). A natural § 103 partner for the "received from a trusted authority" (certificate) element.

4.6 — US 6,219,439 B1 — "Biometric authentication system"

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 6,219,439 B1, Paul M. Burger.
• Dates (verified): Issued 2001-04-17. (Filed 1998-07-09 per the citation record.)
• Description: A biometric authentication system. (Note: this is the "Burger" patent; the Apple petition's Ground-2 Burger reference is a different Burger item — App. No. 2005/0050367 — so do not conflate them.)
• § 102 mapping: General biometric-authentication teaching; use with caution as it is broad.

4.7 — Other examiner-cited references in the same vein (secondary support)

• US 6,185,316 B1 — "Self-authentication apparatus and method," Buffam — issued 2001-02-06 (filed 1997-11-12). On-device self-authentication.
• US 6,256,737 B1 — "System, method and computer program product for allowing access to enterprise resources using biometric devices," Bionetrix — issued 2001-07-03. Biometric gating of resource access.
• US 6,363,485 B1 — "Multi-factor biometric authenticating device and method," Entrust — issued 2002-03-26. Multi-factor biometric device.
• US 6,145, etc. and the dense 1990s fob/card/reader art (e.g., US 5,892,825, US 5,910, etc.) appear primarily as background for the general level of skill.

---

5. Tier 3 — Third-party (†) references of specific relevance to claim 1's enumerated transaction types

Claim 1 and claim 7 recite completion by accessing a casino machine. The following third-party citations are directly relevant to that element — and, importantly, they are post-2004, so they matter only under the later-priority hypothesis (§ 2 above):

5.1 — WO 2007/098156 A2 — "Wagering game machine wireless key"

• Full citation: PCT Publication WO 2007/098156 A2, WMS Gaming Inc.
• Dates: Priority 2006-02-20; published 2007-08-30.
• Description: A wireless key for a wagering game machine — i.e., wireless authentication of a user to a casino wagering machine.
• § 102 mapping: Directly targets the "casino machine" transaction element of claims 1 and 7. Only available as prior art if the '989 claims are denied the 2004 priority date (it is § 102(a)(1) art as of its 2007 publication, or § 102(a)(2)/§102(e) as of its 2006 priority, neither of which predates Dec. 20, 2004).

5.2 — US 2007/0239994 A1 — "Bio-metric encryption key generator"

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0239994 A1, Kulkarni.
• Dates: Priority 2006-04-05.
• Description: Generates an encryption key from biometric data. Relevant to the patent's "encryption/decryption keys utilized to establish secure communications links" and to the abstract's "secret decryption value."
• § 102 mapping: The secure-channel and stored-key concepts (claims 1, 5). Post-2004 → later-priority-dependent.

5.3 — US 9,112,705 B2 — "ID system and program, and ID method"

• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 9,112,705 B2, NEC Corporation.
• Dates: Priority 2006-02-15 (as listed).
• Description: An ID system/method. Post-2004 → later-priority-dependent.

---

6. Consolidated claim map

---

7. Claim-by-claim referee notes

• Claim 1 is the only claim Apple asserted in the district court (6:24-cv-00143); LG asserted claims 1–6; Samsung asserted claims 1–6 in 6:21-cv-00210. A prior-art attack should therefore be aimed at claims 1–6 first.
• The hardest limitations to anticipate are the ones no single pre-2004 reference cleanly shows together:
  1. the actor is a "smartphone" (the referenced fob/card art uses a dedicated device);
  2. the code is "received … from a third-party trusted authority" before the transaction (fob art generates the code locally; the pre-registration in US 6,041,410 happens at the resource-holder, not a remote authority);
  3. the code is sent for comparison by the third-party authority against previously registered ID codes (a three-party architecture: smartphone → trusted authority → resource).
     These three elements are precisely where the litigants' priority dispute bites — they are the elements most plausibly added after 2004.

---

8. What I could not verify / explicit limitations

1. Baird (US 2006/0075230) and Burger (US 2005/0050367): I confirmed they were relied upon in the Apple IPR2025-00600 petition, but I could not open their specifications and therefore cannot describe their disclosures at element level or confirm their filing dates/titles. Do not treat my characterizations of them as verified.
2. Complete citation set: I did not individually analyze all 748 references. Tier 2 and Tier 3 are a relevance-filtered subset.
3. Apple IPR2025-00600 procedural posture: Terminated procedurally; grounds never instituted. Samsung IPR2021-01448 was not instituted on the merits. So no prior-art holding on the '989 patent exists.
4. Reference dates: Dates marked "(verified)" come from the Google Patents authority text you supplied and/or the cited patent records. I did not PACER/P-TACTS-pull the underlying petition exhibits to confirm claim-chart scope.
5. § 102 vs. § 103: The PTAB grounds were pleaded as obviousness combinations; only the examiner-cited references in Tier 2 were evaluated here for standalone § 102 potential, and even there I label the "smartphone/third-party-authority" elements as gaps.

If you want the authoritative next step: pull the IPR2025-00600 petition and its claim charts from P-TACTS (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) and the Samsung Final Invalidity Contentions (Ex. 2011) from IPR2021-01438/01439 — those documents contain the element-by-element § 102/§ 103 mapping that would let this table be completed with verified content for Baird, Burger, and the remaining cited art.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art references cited on the '989 patent's own Google Patents page. Let me verify the subject matter of the key references before building the combinations.

Let me verify the references mapping to the "wireless phone / financial transaction / trusted entity" elements.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,698,989 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Patent: US 10,698,989 B2, "Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication"
Inventor: John J. Giobbi | Assignee: Proxense, LLC
App. No.: 15/049,060 (filed Feb. 20, 2016) | Issued: June 30, 2020
Priority claim (on its face): 2004-12-20 (via 14/521,982 ← 13/710,109 ← 11/314,199 ← Prov. 60/637,538 / 60/652,765)

Grounding note: Per the operating rules, this analysis is grounded in the prior-art references appearing on the '989 patent's own Google Patents page (the 748-reference "Citations" list plus the 16 "Cited By" entries), not in outside art. I independently verified the subject matter of the five load-bearing references (TRW '410, AT&T '5285, Burger '439, Entrust '3485, Morrill '749) via web search; for the remaining references I rely on their printed titles/assignees and say so explicitly.

---

1. Threshold issue: the effective prior-art date is dispositive

The claims 1–9 now at issue are not the 2004-era claims. They were rewritten with "smartphone" as the claimed platform and with a "third-party trusted authority" element. Two date scenarios:

The analysis below first assumes Scenario A (the harder, patent-favorable case) and then adds Scenario B art.

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA): a B.S. in EE/CS (or equivalent) with ~2–4 years' experience in RFID/wireless access control or biometric authentication, or equivalent practical experience. This is the artisan who would have read TRW '410 and Morrill '749 side-by-side in 2004.

---

2. Claim 1 decomposed — and why no single reference anticipates

Claim 1 is a method claim with six limitations. The table maps each limitation to the best-matching cited reference:

Conclusion: No single reference discloses all of 1a–1f. In particular, none of the verified references discloses a smartphone that both (i) receives its ID code from a third-party authority and (ii) performs on-board biometric matching and then transmits that code to an access point. Anticipation under § 102 is therefore not the right frame; § 103 is, and the combination case is strong because the references are drawn from the same field, address the same stated problem, and were cited by the examiner on the face of this very patent.

---

3. The prior-art corpus

Primary references (all pre-2004; all appear in the '989 "Citations" list):

• US 6,041,410 — TRW Inc., "Personal identification fob" (filed Dec. 22, 1997; issued Mar. 21, 2000). Cited-by-examiner (asterisked). Portable fob containing biometric sensor + reference-image storage + correlator + transmitter. Sends an encrypted numerical value derived from the stored reference image; the remote "door" compares it to the value registered during a prior enrollment. Protected "property" expressly includes an ATM, a financial account, and a car/building door. Assignee is a third-party security vendor. — The single most on-point reference; it is essentially the '989 fob embodiment.
• US 6,325,285 B1 — AT&T Corp., "Smart card with integrated fingerprint reader" (filed Nov. 12, 1999; issued Dec. 4, 2001). In-card CPU + write-once fingerprint memory + on-card comparator; card "enabled" on match to access "information and/or services"; FIG. 6 = computer software/data access ("file"); FIG. 7 = point-of-sale identity.
• US 6,219,439 B1 — Burger, "Biometric authentication system" (issued Apr. 17, 2001). Biometric (fingerprint/retina/voice) data stored on a smart card; self-contained one-to-one matching at the reader; card-holder data compared against data stored remote from the card; indicator means for authentication status.
• US 6,363,485 B1 — Entrust Technologies Ltd., "Multi-factor biometric authenticating device and method" (issued Mar. 26, 2002). Two-factor biometric authentication producing a secret key; assignee is a trust/certificate-authority firm (relevant to the "trusted authority" concept).
• US 5,991,749 — Morrill, "Wireless telephony for collecting tolls, conducting financial transactions, and authorizing other activities" (filed Sep. 9, 1997; issued Nov. 23, 1999). Cellular phone used as an electronic wallet / wireless PIN pad / contactless smart card; a remote CPU identifies the transaction, obtains authorization, and confirms completion; access to secured locations is authorized through the same channel.
• US 6,016,476 — IBM, "Portable information and transaction processing system … utilizing biometric authorization and digital certificate security" (title only — content not independently verified this session).
• US 5,991,399 — Intel, "Method for securely distributing a conditional use private key to a trusted entity on a remote system" (title only — relevant to an authority-issued code provisioned to a device; unverified).
• US 2001/0026619 A1 — L-3 Communications, "Apparatus and methods for managing key material in cryptographic assets" (title only — trusted key management; unverified).
• US 6,110,041 — Walker Digital, "Method and system for adapting gaming devices to playing preferences" (priority 1996; issued 2000) and US 2001/0044337 A1 — Rowe, "Gaming system including portable game devices" (2001) — relevant to the casino machine species of claim 1(f) (titles only).

Scenario-B-only art (2012–2014, excluded if claims hold the 2004 date; these appear in the '989 "Cited By" list): Apple US 10,171,458 B2 "Wireless pairing and communication between devices using biometric data"; Nymi/Bionym US 8,994,498 / 9,032,501 / 9,197,414 "Preauthorized wearable biometric device" and "Cryptographic protocol for portable devices"; WMS Gaming WO 2007/098156 A2 "Wagering game machine wireless key"; NEC US 9,112,705 B2 "ID system and program, and ID method."

---

4. The primary combination

Combination I (strongest): TRW '410 + Morrill '749 + AT&T '5285

This three-reference combination renders claim 1 obvious.

What each supplies

Element-by-element: every limitation of claim 1 is disclosed by TRW '410 alone except the word "smartphone" and the "third-party trusted authority" characterization; Morrill '749 supplies the smartphone and the remote-authority transaction completion; AT&T '5285 supplies the persistent/write-once storage attribute with particularity.

Motivation to combine — articulated in the references themselves and under KSR:

1. Same field, same problem, express statement of the problem. TRW '410's background states the identical motivation recited in the '989 specification: "a person still needs to carry a variety of keys … and an ever expanding stack of plastic cards … [and] must memorize several passwords and PINs," and the invention "should eliminate the need to carry multiple keys and scannable cards, and the need to memorize combinations, passwords and PINs." The '989 Background is a near-verbatim restatement. When the primary reference articulates the very problem the patent addresses, the motivation to look to adjacent art in the same field is established. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420–21 (2007).
2. TRW '410 expressly invites substitution of a different portable communication device. It describes the device as "a fob carried by the person, or some other type of communication device remote from the protected property," and notes the device may be "thousands of miles away." A cellular phone is the paradigmatic "other type of communication device" and the natural host for a sensor/memory/transmitter assembly. Substituting a known, more capable hosting platform for a dedicated single-purpose fob is the "predictable variation[] of a known element to a known use" that KSR holds obvious.
3. Morrill '749 makes the phone-as-transaction-instrument teaching explicit. It turns the cell phone into an "electronic wallet, a wireless PIN Pad, and a contactless Smart Card" and routes transactions through a remote CPU that "identifies the desired transaction and obtains authorization" and "confirms completion of the transaction." One of ordinary skill seeking to eliminate the keychain/credential burden of TRW '410 and the PIN burden of Morrill '749 would look precisely to the union of the two: a phone that proves who is holding it (TRW) and then performs the transaction (Morrill). The combination achieves the expected, predictable result — a single device replacing keys and PINs — with no change in the underlying principles of operation.
4. AT&T '5285 supplies the known technique for the known problem of template tampering. Both TRW '410 and AT&T '5285 recognize that the enrolled biometric template must not be alterable. AT&T '5285 solves it by disabling the template memory after a single initialization ("the portion of the memory that stores the fingerprint representation is disabled so that it may not be written to again"); TRW '410 relies on encryption. Applying a known anti-tampering technique (write-once template memory) inside the combined device is "the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
5. Design incentives / market pressure. All three references are commercial security/vendor patents (TRW, AT&T, and Morrill's telco-centric disclosure) directed to the same market: eliminating passwords, PINs, and carried keys. A PHOSITA in Dec. 2004 had ample reason to consolidate these functions into the cellular handset, which was already the single always-carried electronic device and already equipped with processors, persistent memory, displays, and wireless transceivers.
6. Reasonable expectation of success. Each element performs its own well-understood function; no reference teaches that integrating biometric matching into a handset introduces an unacceptable engineering barrier, and the handset of 2004 already had the requisite memory and processing headroom.

Claim chart result: claim 1 obvious over TRW '410 in view of Morrill '749, further in view of AT&T '5285.

Combination II (alternative): Burger '439 + Morrill '749 + AT&T '5285

Substitutes Burger '439 for TRW '410 as the biometric primary. Burger '439 supplies: biometric data ("a fingerprint, saliva, retro scan, and voice scan") stored on a smart card; a reader with an on-board comparator that does a "one-to-one comparison with biometrics of a single user against stored data"; comparison of card data with data stored remote from the card; and indicator means for authentication status. Morrill '749 again supplies the phone platform and remote-CPU transaction authorization; AT&T '5285 supplies write-once persistence.

Motivation: Burger '439 and Morrill '749 share the exploitation of a portable, contactless, wallet-replacing token; Burger's smart card is described as a device that can "open doors as a key, store medical information, and serve as an electronic credit card" — precisely the set of uses Morrill '749 assigns to the cell phone. Combining a contactless biometric smart card with a wireless telephony device to yield the same card functions in a phone is a predictable substitution of one known portable token for another.

Caveat / teaching-away flag: Burger '439 is a hostile reference in part — it emphasizes that its system is "stand-alone," "does not communicate with external sources," and restricts communication "until a positive authentication occurs." That is an express design preference against the external-authority communication required by claim 1(e). Where Burger is used only as a secondary reference for the storage/comparison elements (1b–1d), the teaching-away is of limited weight because it is directed at a different aspect (post-authentication data exfiltration). Where Burger is promoted to primary reference for element 1e, a patent owner would press the teaching-away hard, and the analysis weakens. Combination I is therefore materially stronger than Combination II.

Combination III: additional one- or two-reference pairings worth charting

• TRW '410 + Morrill '749 alone (two references). Because TRW '410 already discloses "holding the reference image for future use" in device memory, the "persistently storing" limitation may be met by '410 alone; AT&T '5285 is then needed only to add the write-once / tamper-resistant attribute (which the '989 claim, as issued, does not expressly recite in claim 1 — it says "persistently storing"). If the patent owner argues "persistently" requires tamper-resistance, AT&T '5285 closes the gap; if not, the two-reference combination suffices.
• Entrust '3485 + Morrill '749: Entrust supplies two-factor biometric authentication producing a secret key; the '989 Specification's "secret decryption value" concept (see the '989 description of the key providing "a secret decryption value that can be used to communicate with the biometric key") maps onto Entrust's generated secret key. Entrust's assignee being an actual trust/certificate authority is useful color for the "third-party trusted authority" element, though the reference itself is about key generation, not ID-code issuance.

---

5. The "third-party trusted authority" element (element 1a/1e) — the one genuinely vulnerable point, and how Scenario B resolves it

The hardest limitations to meet are the ones that make the trusted authority a third party that (i) issues/provisions the ID code to the phone and (ii) separately maintains a registry of legitimate ID codes against which the received code is compared.

• Under Scenario A (2004 date), the best support is TRW '410's registration architecture: the "door" maintains, per registered user, a stored CRC that it compares against the received value, and it also transmits its public key to the device. TRW also contemplates the door being "thousands of miles away," which begins to resemble a central authority. Burger '439 adds remote storage of identifying data. Intel '5,991,399 (trusted entity on a remote system — unverified) and L-3 US 2001/0026619 (key-material management — unverified) would be the natural references for the issuance direction, but I was unable to verify their disclosures within this session, so I do not rely on them as load-bearing. Under Scenario A, combination of TRW '410 + Morrill '749 + AT&T '5285 [ + Burger '439 ] states a strong prima facie case for claims 1–3 and 5–9, but element 1a/4/7 (the third-party registry and the "indicating to another party" step) rests on a broader reading of TRW's "door"/registration disclosure and would likely require the patent owner to distinguish "door" (access point) from "third-party trusted authority."
• Under Scenario B (2016 date), the element is comfortably met: NEC US 9,112,705 ("ID system and program, and ID method") and the general body of 2010–2015 authentication-broker art supply an external party that maintains a registry of legitimate device identifiers and returns an authentication result to a relying party. Combined with TRW '410 + Morrill '749, claims 1–9 would be clearly obvious.

Practical significance: the very claim language that makes these claims commercially valuable (smartphone + third-party authority) is also what makes the priority-date question outcome-determinative. That is presumably why the Samsung IPR2021-01448 and Apple IPR2025-00600 petitions targeted this patent; note that IPR2021-01448 was Not Instituted – Merits and IPR2025-00600 was Procedurally Terminated, so as a matter of the actual administrative record no tribunal has yet held any claim of the '989 patent invalid — a relevant reality check on the strength of the paper case above.

---

6. Dependent claims 2–9

Claims 2, 3, 6, 8 are the most clearly obvious. Claim 4 and the authority-registry prong of claim 7 are the weakest links in the prima facie case.

---

7. Anticipated patent-owner rebuttals, and responses

---

8. Bottom line

1. No anticipation. Under the art on the face of the patent, no single reference discloses all of claim 1. The correct statutory frame is § 103.
2. Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 are strongly obvious over US 6,041,410 (TRW) in view of US 5,991,749 (Morrill), further in view of US 6,325,285 (AT&T), with US 6,219,439 (Burger) as an optional secondary reference for the storage/comparison architecture and US 6,363,485 (Entrust) as color for the trusted-authority role. The motivation is articulated in the references themselves (identical credential-elimination problem statement in '410; express "other communication device" invitation in '410; express phone-as-transaction-device teaching in '749) and is supported by KSR's predictable-variation and known-technique rationales; the combination yields no unexpected result.
3. Claims 4 and 7 (the "third-party trusted authority" registry and "indication to another party" prongs) are the weakest links under a 2004 priority date. If the claims are instead entitled only to the 2016-02-20 filing date, the Scenario-B art in the "Cited By" list (NEC '705 and the 2012–2014 device-pairing/biometric-protocol patents) closes that gap and all nine claims become clearly obvious.
4. Reality check: the actual PTAB record cuts the other way — IPR2021-01448 was not instituted on the merits and IPR2025-00600 was procedurally terminated — so this paper case should be read as a candidate invalidity theory, not a settled one. The priority-date dispute is the single highest-leverage issue in any such challenge.

---

Caveats and verification status

• Verified this session (content read): US 6,041,410 (TRW), US 6,325,285 (AT&T), US 6,219,439 (Burger), US 6,363,485 (Entrust), US 5,991,749 (Morrill). URLs: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6041410A](/patent/US6041410A); https://patents.google.com/patent/US6325285; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6219439; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6363485; https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5991749A](/patent/US5991749A).
• Not verified (relied on by title/assignee only, flagged inline): US 6,016,476 (IBM); US 5,991,399 (Intel); US 2001/0026619 (L-3); US 6,110,041 (Walker Digital); US 2001/0044337 (Rowe); NEC US 9,112,705; Apple US 10,171,458; Nymi/Bionym US 8,994,498 / 9,032,501 / 9,197,414; WMS Gaming WO 2007/098156. No legal conclusion should rest on these without a full-text pull.
• Identifiers reproduced literally as they appear on the Google Patents page; none have been normalized. Publication numbers, filing dates, and priority dates are as listed there.
• The claim text is the issued text of US 10,698,989 B2 (claims 1–9 as reproduced on the source page); the § 103 analysis applies that text as written.
• Consistency check against the previously generated litigation section: no contradiction. The PTAB statuses (IPR2021-01448 "Not Instituted – Merits"; IPR2025-00600 "Procedural Termination") and the district-court cases (Samsung 6:21-cv-00210; Apple 6:24-cv-00143; LG 6:24-cv-00302) referenced in §5 are consistent with that section. The prior section expressly flagged that it could not confirm whether the '989 patent is asserted in Proxense v. Google (6:23-cv-00320) or Proxense v. Microsoft (6:23-cv-00319); that caveat still stands and nothing in this analysis depends on it.
• This is a technical invalidity analysis, not a legal opinion; claim construction, priority-date entitlement, and any ultimate validity determination require the full intrinsic record (prosecution history, any disclaimers, and the PTAB papers) and are outside the scope of what can be concluded here.