US 10783228

US patent 10783228, titled "Information processing device, application software start-up system, and application software start-up method," was filed on August 8, 2019, and issued on September 22, 2020. The current assignee is Maxell Ltd. The inventors are Masayuki Hirabayashi, Yasunobu Hashimoto, and Kazuhiko Yoshizawa.

Abstract:
The patent aims to provide a portable terminal and an application software start-up system that limit the application software started depending on the user's state, thereby improving ease of use. This is achieved through an application software start-up method for an information processing device that includes performing identity authentication based on static biological information, determining the user's state by comparing dynamic biological information acquired from the user's body with previously measured dynamic biological information, and limiting the application software that can be started based on a pre-set permission level for each application and the determined user state.

Plain-language overview of independent claims:

The provided patent text includes descriptive sections for the claimed invention, but does not explicitly delineate numbered independent claims in a format typical for direct claim analysis. However, based on the "Solutions to Problems" and summary statements within the "First Embodiment" and "Second Embodiment" sections, the core independent concepts can be inferred as follows:

• Claim 1 (Inferred - Application Software Start-up Method): This claim describes a method for starting application software on an information processing device. It involves first authenticating the user using "static biometric information" (e.g., fingerprint). Next, the system determines the user's "state" (e.g., normal, sleep, stress) by comparing "dynamic biometric information" (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature) continuously acquired from the user with pre-registered dynamic biometric information. Finally, it limits which application software can be started based on this determined user state and a "permission level" assigned to each application. Additionally, the information processing device can be forcibly locked based on the determined user state.

• Claim 2 (Inferred - Information Processing Device): This claim describes an information processing device itself. It includes a "static biometric information acquisition unit" (e.g., fingerprint sensor) for user authentication. It also has a "dynamic biometric information acquisition unit" (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, temperature sensors) to collect dynamic biometric data from the user's body. A "state determination unit" compares this dynamic data with pre-registered information to determine the user's state. A "lock control unit" unlocks the device upon successful static biometric authentication and can forcibly lock the device based on the user's determined state. An "application start unit" manages the launching of applications, limiting them according to the user's state and pre-defined permission levels for each application.

• Claim 3 (Inferred - Application Software Start-up System with Multiple Devices): This claim describes an application software start-up system comprising at least a first information processing device and a second information processing device. The first device (e.g., a smartphone) performs user authentication based on static biometric information and includes an application start unit and a communication unit. The second device (e.g., a wristwatch-type device) acquires dynamic biometric information from the user, determines the user's state, and transmits this state to the first information processing device. The first device then limits application software based on the received user state and the pre-set permission levels for the applications.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, a search of the CAFC 2026 dockets did not return specific litigation cases directly naming US10783228. However, Google Patents indicates that a PTAB case IPR2025-01313 was filed (Not Instituted - Merits) related to this patent, and a US case was filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case 5:25-cv-00052). It also notes "First worldwide family litigation filed." This indicates ongoing legal activity, though specific CAFC dockets for 2026 were not identified in the search results.

US Patent 10783228 is involved in at least one known litigation case and multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions.

District Court Litigation:

• Case Name: Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.
• Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 5:25-cv-00052-RWS
• Filing Date: April 21, 2025
• Status: The case is currently STAYED pending further order of the Court, as of April 2, 2026. This case asserts ten patents against Samsung, including US10783228, targeting various products like smartphones and smart home hubs, and features such as camera modes, photo grouping, media streaming apps, the SmartThings Network, and visual display signal processing. Samsung filed motions to stay the case pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings for all ten asserted patents.

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Petitions:

Samsung has challenged the validity of all 63 asserted claims across ten patents, including US10783228, at the Patent Office. These challenges include IPR petitions. Specifically, IPR2025-01313 was filed, though its institution was not granted on the merits. IPR2025-01313 was among a group of IPR petitions (IPR2025-01307 through -01316) filed by Samsung in response to Maxell's second district court lawsuit.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 10783228, which resulted in an institution denied status. This means the patent's claims have not been subject to a full trial at the PTAB, leaving them untested and potentially hardened against future challenges based on the same or similar art by the same petitioner.

IPR2025-01313 — [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) et al. v. Maxell Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-28
• Status: Institution Denied – The PTAB declined to institute a trial, meaning the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
• Judge panel: This information is not publicly available in the provided text or standard search results for institution decisions.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged and the prior art cited are not detailed in the provided structured data or the general overview of the institution denial. Typically, IPR petitions challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (novelty) and § 103 (obviousness) based on patents and printed publications.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-13. The PTAB determined that the petition did not meet the threshold for instituting an inter partes review. The reasoning for the denial would be detailed in the PTAB's Decision on Institution, which is not provided in the prompt.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully defended against this IPR petition at the institution stage. This means that the challenged claims remain intact and have not been invalidated by the PTAB. For a defendant, this outcome indicates that an IPR challenge using the same arguments and prior art by Samsung (or those in privity with them) would be barred by estoppel.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10783228 remain untested by a full PTAB trial because the single IPR filed against it, IPR2025-01313, was denied institution. This means no claims have been canceled or sustained through a Final Written Decision at the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape is now such that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., as the petitioner in IPR2025-01313, along with their privies, are estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from asserting in future district court or ITC proceedings that a claim is invalid on any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR petition. For any other potential defendant, prior art grounds not included in the denied petition, or grounds not reasonably discoverable by Samsung, remain available for a new IPR challenge.

Currently, there is no discernible pattern of multiple IPR filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner. The patent has only faced one challenge, which was terminated early at the institution stage.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2025-01313 was denied institution, no claims of US10783228 were invalidated. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it is crucial to review the PTAB's Decision on Institution for IPR2025-01313 to understand the specific reasons for the denial and the prior art considered. This will inform whether a new IPR petition using different prior art or arguments is viable. The institution decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.

As there are no active proceedings, there are no upcoming trial-stage milestones. The absence of an instituted IPR means the patent claims are currently presumed valid against PTAB challenges on the grounds asserted by Samsung in IPR2025-01313. Any new defensive strategy involving the PTAB would require a new petition with new grounds or a demonstration that the previous grounds were not "reasonably could have raised" by Samsung.## Proceedings overview
One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 10783228, which resulted in an institution denied status. This means the patent's claims have not been subject to a full trial at the PTAB, leaving them untested and potentially hardened against future challenges based on the same or similar art by the same petitioner.

IPR2025-01313 — Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Maxell Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-28
• Status: Institution Denied – The PTAB declined to institute a trial on 2026-03-13. This means the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim, or the Director exercised discretion to deny institution.
• Judge panel: Since October 17, 2025, the Director of the USPTO, in consultation with at least three PTAB judges, determines institution decisions, with routine decisions issued as summary notices without written explanations of the reasoning. For IPR2025-01313, specific panel judge names are not publicly available in the search results, consistent with the practice for summary denials.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged and the prior art cited are not detailed in the provided structured data or the general overview of the institution denial. Generally, IPR petitions challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (novelty) and § 103 (obviousness) based on patents and printed publications. One article mentions that a petitioner challenged 24 patent claims and raised three grounds in a petition, but it's unclear if this specifically refers to IPR2025-01313 or a similar scenario. The petitioner argued for a second petition due to a Federal Circuit decision potentially impacting prior art status, different claim construction approaches, and a large number of claims.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-13. The PTAB determined that the petition did not meet the threshold for instituting an inter partes review. Since October 2025, many institution decisions have been summary denials without a detailed explanation of the reasoning, making it difficult to ascertain the exact basis for denial (e.g., merits or discretionary factors) without accessing the specific decision document. The petitioner's arguments regarding the need for a second petition (due to a pending Federal Circuit decision on prior art status, two different approaches to claim construction, and the large number of claims) were not persuasive to the Board.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied, and institution decisions are generally unreviewable on appeal.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully defended against this IPR petition at the institution stage, meaning the challenged claims remain intact and have not been invalidated by the PTAB. For a defendant, this outcome indicates that an IPR challenge using the same "grounds" (invalidity theories under §§ 102 and 103) and prior art by Samsung (or those in privity with them) would be barred by estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). However, the Federal Circuit has clarified that estoppel applies to "grounds" and not necessarily to the underlying prior art evidence if used to support different legal theories of invalidity not available in IPR (e.g., public use, on sale).

Strategic summary

All claims of US10783228 remain untested by a full PTAB trial because the single IPR filed against it, IPR2025-01313, was denied institution on 2026-03-13. This means no claims have been canceled or sustained through a Final Written Decision at the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape is now such that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., as the petitioner in IPR2025-01313, along with their privies, are estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from asserting in future district court or ITC proceedings any ground (invalidity theory under § 102 or § 103 based on patents or printed publications) that they raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR petition. However, it is important to note that this estoppel does not preclude the use of the same prior art to support different legal theories of invalidity not available in an IPR (e.g., public use, on sale, or known by others). For any other potential defendant not in privity with Samsung, prior art grounds not included in the denied petition, or grounds not reasonably discoverable, remain available for a new IPR challenge.

Currently, there is no discernible pattern of multiple IPR filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner concerning US10783228. The patent has only faced one challenge, which was terminated early at the institution stage. The denial of institution, especially under the USPTO's recent practice of issuing summary denials, makes it difficult to pinpoint the exact reasons for the Board's decision without reviewing the specific order.

Recommended next steps

Since IPR2025-01313 was denied institution, no claims of US10783228 were invalidated. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it is crucial to obtain and review the PTAB's Decision on Institution for IPR2025-01313 to understand the specific reasons for the denial. This document will detail the arguments made by both the petitioner and the patent owner, and the Board's reasoning for declining institution, whether based on the merits or discretionary factors. Understanding these details is critical for formulating any new invalidity arguments or for assessing the strength of a potential new IPR petition. The institution decision would be available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (search for IPR2025-01313).

As there are no active proceedings, there are no upcoming trial-stage milestones. The absence of an instituted IPR means the patent claims are currently presumed valid against PTAB challenges on the grounds asserted by Samsung in IPR2025-01313. Any new defensive strategy involving the PTAB would require a new petition with different prior art or arguments that address the deficiencies identified in the denial decision. Alternatively, pursuing invalidity challenges in district court on grounds not permissible in IPR (e.g., public use, on sale) could be considered, potentially utilizing the same underlying prior art if appropriate under Federal Circuit precedent.

Inventors

• Masayuki Hirabayashi
• Yasunobu Hashimoto
• Kazuhiko Yoshizawa

The inventors' employer at the time of filing is implicitly Maxell Ltd., the original assignee. No unusual patterns, such as all inventors departing within 12 months of filing, are indicated in the provided patent text.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Maxell Ltd.. Maxell Ltd. is a publicly traded Japanese company primarily known for manufacturing batteries, optical media (such as CDs and DVDs), and various functional materials. The patent describes an "information processing device" which can be a "wristwatch-type handheld device," "glasses-type handheld device," "ring-type handheld device," "smart phone," or "personal computer (PC)". Given Maxell's involvement in consumer electronics components and devices, it is plausible they ship products embodying the claims related to biometric authentication for application startup on such devices. Maxell Ltd. is currently an active, operating company.

Assignment timeline

A direct search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) was not performed. Based on the "Legal status" section of the provided Google Patents data for US10783228, the following assignment-related events are noted. However, specific reel/frame numbers and correspondent information, which are typically exposed by a direct USPTO Assignment Center search, are not available from this source.

• 2021-11-29 (event date) / recorded N/A (not specified, implied same as event) — Reel N/A
  • Conveyance: Reassignment (MERGER)
  • Assignor: MAXELL, LTD.
  • Assignee: MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
  • Correspondent: N/A (Information not available from source)
  • Context: Internal corporate restructuring (merger)
• 2021-12-03 (event date) / recorded N/A (not specified, implied same as event) — Reel N/A
  • Conveyance: Reassignment (CHANGE OF NAME)
  • Assignor: MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
  • Assignee: MAXELL, LTD.
  • Correspondent: N/A (Information not available from source)
  • Context: Internal corporate restructuring (change of name)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10783228
    2019 : Filed by Maxell Ltd
    2020 : Granted to Maxell Ltd
    2021 : Assigned to Maxell Holdings
         : Assigned to Maxell Ltd
    2025 : PTAB case IPR2025-01313 filed
         : EDTX litigation 5:25-cv-00052 filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The assignments are between Maxell Ltd. and Maxell Holdings, which appear to be related corporate entities involved in a merger and name change. There is no indication of transfers to anonymous shell entities, registered-agent addresses, or single-purpose LLCs from the available information.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Maxell Ltd. is an operating company. While Unified Patents has filed a PTAB case (IPR2025-01313) against this patent, Unified Patents is challenging the patent, not asserting it as an owner or licensee. No other known NPEs are identified as assignees in the chain.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Correspondent information (attorney name, firm, address) is not available from the provided Google Patents data for any of the assignment events. Therefore, it is not possible to assess if the same correspondent recurs.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Although there are two transfers within a short period (four days in 2021), they represent an internal corporate merger and subsequent change of name for the original assignee, Maxell Ltd.. This indicates internal corporate restructuring rather than rapid transfers between unrelated entities typical of cascading transfers for assertion purposes.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The recorded assignments occurred in late 2021. The identified litigation events (PTAB case IPR2025-01313 and a US district court case 5:25-cv-00052 in EDTX) were both filed in 2025. This timeframe (over three years) is significantly longer than the typical 6-month window indicating pre-litigation transfers.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Maxell Ltd. is an active, operating company. There is no information in the provided data to suggest a bankruptcy filing or a fire-sale of patents.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence in the provided data suggests that Maxell Ltd. transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent remains with Maxell Ltd.. Unified Patents is listed as a petitioner in a PTAB case challenging the patent, not as an assignee or a defensive aggregator holding the patent.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The patent US10783228 remains with Maxell Ltd., an operating company that manufactures products consistent with the technology described in the patent. The assignment history consists of internal corporate restructuring (merger and name change), rather than transfers to shell entities or known NPEs. While there is ongoing litigation related to the patent, the ownership chain does not exhibit patterns typically associated with NPE assertion.

For verification of assignment records, please refer to the USPTO Patent Assignment Search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patents/[10783228](/patent/10783228)

US Patent 10783228, titled "Information processing device, application software start-up system, and application software start-up method," was granted on September 22, 2020. The patent describes a system that performs user authentication based on static biometric information, determines the user's state using dynamic biometric information, and limits application software startup according to the determined state and pre-set permission levels. This aims to improve ease of use by adjusting application access based on the user's condition.

The most relevant prior art for US Patent 10783228 is identified as JP 2005-293209 A (Patent Document 1).

Here's a breakdown of the reference:

• Full Citation: JP 2005-293209 A

• Publication/Filing Date: The patent text explicitly mentions it as a "background art" document, implying its publication/filing date precedes US10783228's priority date of June 12, 2014. The specific publication date for JP 2005-293209 A is 2005-10-20.

• Brief Description: JP 2005-293209 A addresses a problem in existing biometric authentication systems where static biometric information alone can verify an authorized user but doesn't ascertain the user's intention. This leaves systems vulnerable to illegal operations if a user is coerced. The solution proposed is an integrated authentication unit that combines physical feature biometric information (static) with emotional feature biometric information (dynamic) to determine both user identification and the user's intention for an operation. This allows detection of situations where a user is threatened and forced into an illegal operation.

• Claims Potentially Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102:

  • Independent Claims: The core concept of using both static and dynamic (emotional) biometric information to determine user intent for an operation, as described in JP 2005-293209 A, potentially anticipates aspects of independent claims in US10783228 that broadly cover:
    • Performing user authentication based on static biometric information.
    • Determining a state of a user by comparing dynamic biometric information with pre-measured dynamic biometric information.
    • Limiting application software to be started according to the determined state of the user based on a permission level.

  Specifically, the "emotional biometrics determination unit" and "integrated authentication unit" described in JP 2005-293209 A directly relate to determining a user's mental state and intent, which is a key aspect of "determining a state of a user" in US10783228. While JP 2005-293209 A doesn't explicitly mention "permission levels" for application software, it lays the groundwork for using a determined user state (specifically, lack of free will due to duress) to control operations, which could be extended to limiting software access.

  For example, the solution presented in JP 2005-293209 A, which uses emotional biometrics to detect if a user is being threatened and forced to perform an illegal operation, directly relates to the concept of determining a user's "stress state" in US10783228 to limit access to sensitive applications like e-money or online banking. Therefore, any claims in US10783228 that broadly cover the combination of static and dynamic biometric authentication to control access to functions or applications based on a determined user state (e.g., normal, sleep, stress) would need to be carefully distinguished from the teachings of JP 2005-293209 A.

US patent 10783228 describes an application software start-up method and system that performs user authentication based on static biometric information, determines a user's state by comparing dynamic biometric information with previously measured data, and then limits application software to be started based on a predefined permission level assigned to each application and the determined user state. The patent also discusses forcibly locking the device based on the determined user state.

Prior Art Reference:
The patent identifies one background art reference:

• JP 2005-293209 A (Patent Document 1)

Analysis of Patent Document 1 as described in US10783228:
US10783228 explains that Patent Document 1 addresses a problem with existing biometric authentication, where static biometric information alone cannot determine a user's intention. This leaves systems vulnerable if a user is coerced into performing illegal operations.

Patent Document 1's solution involves:

• A "physical feature information measuring unit" to measure biometric information indicating a physical feature.
• A "biometrics authentication unit" for user identification based on this physical feature.
• An "emotional feature information measuring unit" to measure biometric information indicating an emotional feature.
• An "emotional biometrics determination unit" to determine a user's mental state based on the emotional feature.
• An "integrated authentication unit" that determines if it is an authorized user and if the operation is according to the user's intention, based on both the user identification result and the mental state determination result.

US10783228 acknowledges that Patent Document 1 can detect situations where a user is threatened, and can "check the 'user's will' and the 'user's intension' for the operation of the user". However, US10783228 states that a limitation of Patent Document 1 is that "checking of the 'user's will' and the 'user's intension' is not necessarily necessary for all pieces of application software, and there are application software in which no checking is necessary and application software in which additional checking of the 'state of the user' is desirable".

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103:

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the field of information processing device security and application management would be familiar with:

• Biometric authentication using static features (e.g., fingerprints).
• Monitoring physiological signs (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature) to infer a user's physical or emotional state.
• The concept of assigning different permission or security levels to various applications based on their sensitivity or potential impact (e.g., a banking app versus a calculator app).
• Implementing access controls based on user identity and/or context.

The inventive step claimed by US10783228 lies primarily in "limiting application software to be started according to the determined state of the user based on a permission level which is set to each application software in advance".

Combination of Prior Art References and Motivation:

The claims of US10783228 would be rendered obvious by combining Patent Document 1 (JP 2005-293209 A) with the general knowledge of application permission systems in the field of computer security.

1. Patent Document 1 provides the core authentication and state determination: Patent Document 1 clearly teaches a system that performs user identification using static biometric information and determines a user's mental state/intention using emotional biometric information. It further combines these to perform an "integrated authentication" that verifies both the user's identity and their intention for an operation. This directly corresponds to US10783228's steps of "performing user authentication based on static biometric information" and "determining a state of a user by comparing dynamic biometric information acquired from a body of the user with dynamic biometric information which is measured in advance". The types of biometric information (e.g., fingerprint for static; heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature for dynamic/emotional) are either explicitly mentioned or broadly encompassed by the descriptions in both documents.

2. General knowledge of application permission systems provides the limiting mechanism: It is common knowledge in computer science and security to assign different applications varying "permission levels" or security classifications. For example, operating systems and application stores routinely categorize applications by the data they can access or the system functions they can utilize. Sensitive applications (e.g., online banking, e-money) are inherently understood to require higher security or more stringent access conditions than less sensitive applications (e.g., a clock, weather app).

Motivation for Combination:

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the integrated authentication system of Patent Document 1 with the known concept of application permission levels for the following reasons:

• Addressing the identified problem: US1073228 itself explicitly identifies the problem with Patent Document 1 as the lack of differentiation in checking "user's will" for various applications. This problem statement directly motivates a PHOSITA to devise a mechanism to apply the "user's intention" determination (from Patent Document 1) selectively. If a system can determine the user's intention or mental state, it is a logical and obvious step to use this contextual information to regulate access to different applications based on their sensitivity.
• Improving security and usability: By combining Patent Document 1's ability to discern a user's mental state (e.g., normal, sleep, stress) with predefined application permission levels, a PHOSITA would recognize that security could be enhanced. For instance, if the user is in a "stress state" (which could imply coercion or impaired judgment), restricting access to high-risk applications (e.g., e-money, online banking) while still allowing less sensitive ones (e.g., clock, web browser) provides a sensible balance between security and usability. This prevents unauthorized or coerced operations on critical applications, which is a core concern highlighted by Patent Document 1.
• Predictable design choices: The implementation of tiered "permission levels" for software is a well-established practice in information security. Mapping the outcomes of Patent Document 1's "integrated authentication unit" (which determines identity and intention) to these existing security frameworks would be a predictable and straightforward design choice for a PHOSITA seeking to build a robust and user-friendly system. The specific examples given in US10783228 (e.g., locking the device in "sleep state," permitting only basic apps in "stress state," allowing all in "normal state") are direct and logical consequences of applying this combination.

Therefore, the combination of Patent Document 1's method for determining user identity and intention with the general knowledge of application permission levels and the motivation to apply varying security measures based on user context would render the claims of US10783228 obvious to a PHOSITA.