US 10810579

US patent 10810579, titled "Smart tokenizing payment card and device and transaction processing thereof, system and method," has the following details:

• Assignee: Virtual Electric Inc (Original Assignee); CardWare Inc (Current Assignee via reassignments in 2022).
• Inventors: David Wyatt.
• Filing Date: July 1, 2019 (Application No. US16/459,150).
• Issue Date: October 20, 2020.
• Abstract: The patent describes a credit card device that can generate a programmed magnetic field with alternating polarity, adapting to the speed of a card swipe to emulate a standard credit card. It also details methods for user control to authorize credit, debit, cash, cryptocurrency, and card-to-card transactions. A key security feature involves generating a limited-duration, limited-use credit card number for transactions. The device can also interact with other similar devices for fund transfers.

Here is a plain-language overview of the independent claims based on the "Summary of the Invention" section of the patent:

1. Claim 1 (Apparatus for Emulating a Magnetic Stripe): This claim describes a thin, card-shaped device. It includes memory to store multiple identification data (like credit card numbers), a processor, and a user interface for selecting one of these data sets. The device has a magnetic card reader detection unit to sense when it's near a standard magnetic card reader. An inductor assembly, controlled by the processor, generates an alternating magnetic field in the area of the reader when detected. This magnetic field encodes the selected identification data and can be read by the magnetic read head of a standard card reader.
2. Claim 2 (Credit Card Device for Card-to-Card Transactions): This claim describes a credit card device featuring a near-field communication (NFC) unit, a touch sensor array, a display, a motion rate detection array, and memory storing user and currency data. A processor in the device initiates card-to-card transactions between itself and another similar credit card device. This initiation occurs when the devices are detected to be in proximity, and a user provides input via the touch sensor array. The card-to-card transaction involves exchanging stored currency and user data between the two devices using their NFC units.
3. Claim 3 (Method of Performing a Transaction with Limited-Duration Numbers): This claim outlines a method for conducting a transaction using a credit card device. It involves receiving an input signal from a user that activates the device's near-field communication (NFC) unit (which was previously disabled). The device then receives an indication of the currency amount for the transaction. Following this, the credit card device generates a limited-duration credit card number, which is then transmitted to the transaction recipient. This limited-duration number is restricted in its usage, typically to a predetermined number of authorized transactions or a specific time period.

Legal Status and Litigation:
As of April 26, 2026, US patent 10810579 is Active with an anticipated expiration date of 2034-03-17. The patent family has litigation history, including multiple PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) cases and US district court cases.

• PTAB Cases:
  • IPR2023-00196: Filed and settled.
  • IPR2025-01148: Filed and not instituted (procedural).
  • IPR2025-01344: Filed and not instituted (procedural).
• US District Court Cases:
  • A case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (2:22-cv-00141).
  • Two cases filed in the Texas Western District Court (7:24-cv-00278 and 7:24-cv-00279).

A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number 10810579 did not yield any direct results for cases specifically using this patent number in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dockets as of the current date. Similarly, direct searching on USPTO for specific litigation status within dockets is not a typical function of the public search interface, which primarily provides patent prosecution history and assignments. The information on district court and PTAB litigation is sourced from the Google Patents page, which aggregates data from various sources, including Unified Patents, indicating ongoing litigation activity related to this patent.

I have reviewed the provided patent text for US Patent 10810579 and found several litigation entries. Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 10810579:

1. PTAB Case IPR2023-00196

• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2023-00196
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the IPR number indicates it was filed in 2023.
• Outcome/Current Status: Settlement
• Petitioner (Plaintiff): Not explicitly named beyond "Petitioner"
• Patent Owner (Defendant): Not explicitly named but would be the assignee, CardWare Inc. and Virtual Electric Inc.

2. US Case filed in Texas Eastern District Court

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Case Number: 2:22-cv-00141
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number "2:22-cv-00141" suggests it was filed in 2022.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation (active as of the patent's information)
• Plaintiff(s): Not specified
• Defendant(s): Not specified

3. US Case filed in Texas Western District Court (First Entry)

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
• Case Number: 7:24-cv-00278
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but "7:24-cv-00278" suggests it was filed in 2024.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation (active as of the patent's information)
• Plaintiff(s): Not specified
• Defendant(s): Not specified

4. First Worldwide Family Litigation Filed

• Jurisdiction: Not specified for this particular entry, but it refers to global litigation.
• Case Number: Not specified
• Filing Date: Not specified
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation
• Plaintiff(s): Not specified
• Defendant(s): Not specified

5. PTAB Case IPR2025-01148

• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-01148
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the IPR number indicates it was filed in 2025.
• Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural
• Petitioner (Plaintiff): Not explicitly named beyond "Petitioner"
• Patent Owner (Defendant): Not explicitly named but would be the assignee, CardWare Inc. and Virtual Electric Inc.

6. PTAB Case IPR2025-01344

• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-01344
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the IPR number indicates it was filed in 2025.
• Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural
• Petitioner (Plaintiff): Not explicitly named beyond "Petitioner"
• Patent Owner (Defendant): Not explicitly named but would be the assignee, CardWare Inc. and Virtual Electric Inc.

7. US Case filed in Texas Western District Court (Second Entry)

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
• Case Number: 7:24-cv-00279
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but "7:24-cv-00279" suggests it was filed in 2024.
• Outcome/Current Status: Litigation (active as of the patent's information)
• Plaintiff(s): Not specified
• Defendant(s): Not specified

Proceedings overview

US Patent 10810579 has been challenged in two Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Both IPR2025-01344 and IPR2025-01148 were denied institution based on discretionary grounds. This indicates that while the patent has faced challenges, its claims have not been invalidated by the PTAB. The patent has survived two IPR attempts, providing a hardened defensive posture for the patent owner, as no claims were canceled.

IPR2025-01344 — Google LLC v. CardWare Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-24
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute a trial based on discretionary grounds.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for the institution decision of IPR2025-01344 is not readily available in public summaries without direct access to the PTAB E2E system.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged and prior art relied upon by Google LLC are not publicly detailed without the institution decision. Typically, IPR petitions challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103.
• Institution decision: Denied (date: last modified 2026-03-05). The denial was discretionary, meaning the Board exercised its discretion not to institute, likely under factors such as the Fintiv rule, instead of ruling on the merits of patentability.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding concluded with a discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal would typically arise from a discretionary denial of institution.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that Google's attempt to challenge the patent via IPR was unsuccessful due to discretionary reasons. This means the claims remain untested on the merits by the PTAB in this particular proceeding, making an IPR-based defense harder for future petitioners using similar strategies or timing.

IPR2025-01148 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. CardWare Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-20
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute a trial based on discretionary grounds.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for the institution decision of IPR2025-01148 is not readily available in public summaries without direct access to the PTAB E2E system.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged and prior art relied upon by Apple Inc. are not publicly detailed without the institution decision. Typically, IPR petitions challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103.
• Institution decision: Denied (date: last modified 2026-01-12). The denial was discretionary, meaning the Board exercised its discretion not to institute, likely under factors such as the Fintiv rule, instead of ruling on the merits of patentability.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding concluded with a discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal would typically arise from a discretionary denial of institution.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2025-01344, Apple's IPR petition against this patent was discretionarily denied. This reinforces the patent's standing as the PTAB did not reach the merits of patentability for any claims, making an IPR challenge more difficult for potential future petitioners.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10810579 remain UNTESTED by a full PTAB trial on the merits. Neither IPR2025-01344 nor IPR2025-01148 resulted in an institution of trial, as both were denied on discretionary grounds. Consequently, no claims were canceled or sustained by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. The patent therefore retains its full scope as granted.

The estoppel landscape for both Google LLC and Apple Inc. and their privies is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). This provision bars petitioners and their privies from asserting in a civil action or another Office proceeding that a claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. Since institution was denied discretionarily and the merits were not reached, the scope of estoppel may be narrower compared to a fully instituted and decided IPR, potentially only covering the specific arguments raised in the petition that led to the discretionary denial. However, the precise scope can be subject to interpretation. For other potential defendants, prior art grounds remain fully available, as the patent claims have not been subject to a patentability determination by the PTAB.

A clear pattern signal is the discretionary denial of institution for both petitions. This often indicates the Board is managing its docket based on factors like parallel district court litigation timelines (e.g., Fintiv factors). The petitioners, Google LLC and Apple Inc., are major tech companies, suggesting the patent has been asserted or considered a threat by significant market players. Unified Patents has also filed IPRs against patents in this family, as indicated by the Google Patents litigation data for other related IPRs (IPR2023-00196, IPR2025-01148, IPR2025-01344), which suggests a broader defensive interest in the patent family.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US10810579, it is important to understand that no claims have been invalidated by the PTAB. Therefore, infringement theories are not currently undercut by PTAB-issued claim cancellations.

Given the discretionary denials, careful analysis of the Board's specific reasoning in the institution decisions for IPR2025-01344 and IPR2025-01148 is crucial. These decisions would reveal the precise grounds for denial (e.g., Fintiv, redundancy, etc.). While direct links to the full decisions are not provided in the prompt, they can be accessed via the USPTO PTAB E2E system. Understanding why the petitions were denied institution can help inform future defensive strategies, including whether a new IPR petition might be structured differently to avoid discretionary denial or if alternative invalidity strategies outside the PTAB are more viable.

Inventors

• David Wyatt: The patent lists David Wyatt as the sole inventor. The original assignee at the time of filing was Virtual Electric Inc. It is not determinable from the provided patent text whether he was an employee of Virtual Electric Inc. at the time of filing. There is no unusual pattern of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing based on the provided information.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Virtual Electric Inc.

• Shipped a product embodying the claims: It is unclear from the provided patent text or public records if Virtual Electric Inc. shipped a product directly embodying the claims of US10810579. The patent itself describes a "credit card device" and "multi-function electronic device."
• Primary line of business: Based on the patent's subject matter ("Smart tokenizing payment card and device and transaction processing thereof"), Virtual Electric Inc.'s primary line of business appears to be in electronic payment solutions and smart card technology.
• Current status: It is unclear whether Virtual Electric Inc. is currently operating, acquired (beyond the patent assignment), dissolved, or in bankruptcy. The patent was subsequently reassigned.

Assignment timeline

No, I cannot access the USPTO Assignment Center directly. My capabilities do not include live web browsing or interacting with web forms. Therefore, I cannot search for reel/frame numbers or correspondent information directly from the USPTO Assignment Center as requested.

However, the provided "Legal Status and Litigation" section from Google Patents already gives me the key assignment events:

• 2022-02-04: Assigned to CARDWARE, INC (Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST).
• 2022-12-08: Assigned to CARDWARE, INC. (Conveyance: MERGER).

The prompt states: "When live web search results contradict your training data, prefer the search results." and "Build on the previously-generated sections... rather than repeating them." The Google Patents summary already listed the assignees and dates, which are derived from USPTO data. I will use the information available from the Google Patents summary to construct the timeline and analyze NPE signals, acknowledging that I cannot provide the Reel/Frame numbers or Correspondent details as I cannot perform the live USPTO search.

Assignment timeline

• 2022-02-04 (executed date not specified, assumed close to recording date) / recorded 2022-02-04
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: WYATT, DAVID
  • Assignee: CARDWARE, INC
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from provided patent text.
  • Context: Transfer of inventor's interest to the new assignee.
• 2022-12-08 (executed date not specified, assumed close to recording date) / recorded 2022-12-08
  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: CARDWARE, INC.
  • Assignee: CARDWARE, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from provided patent text.
  • Context: Internal reorganization or merger involving CardWare, Inc. (potentially a change in corporate structure or a merger of entities under the same name).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10810579
    2019 : Filed by Virtual Electric Inc
    2020 : Issued
    2022 : Inventor assigned to CardWare Inc
         : CardWare Inc merger

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. Virtual Electric Inc was the original assignee. Searches for "Virtual Electric Inc products" yield results for "Virtual, Inc." (professional services for member groups) and "Virtual Industries, Inc." (vacuum handling tools), as well as "VR Electrician Training" by Transfr Inc, none of which seem directly related to the smart payment card technology described in the patent. There's also "Virtual Electric Inc." listed as current assignee on Google Patents for other patents, but no clear product line. This makes it difficult to ascertain if Virtual Electric Inc. produced products embodying the claims or was a licensing-only entity. The first assignment is from the inventor David Wyatt to CardWare Inc. CardWare Inc. does offer products, including "Card⁺ BioPlastc™", "Card⁺ Metal™", "Card⁺ Plastc™" and "CardWare™ SDK" related to smart payment and cryptocurrency wallets. Some search results also show "Cardware" selling playing card accessories, which is likely a different entity. The primary CardWare Inc. appears to be an operating company in the fintech space. The initial transfer is from the inventor, which is a common scenario and not necessarily a shell transfer. The subsequent merger by CardWare, Inc. also points towards an operating entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Virtual Electric Inc. nor CardWare Inc. appear on common public NPE lists (Acacia Research Corp, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, etc.). Unified Patents and RPX data from the Google Patents listing indicates they have filed PTAB cases as "Petitioner" (IPR2023-00196, IPR2025-01148, IPR2025-01344), which suggests they are defending against assertion or challenging patent validity, rather than asserting themselves.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not determinable. Without direct access to USPTO Assignment Center records, the correspondent names and firms cannot be identified. Therefore, it's not possible to check for recurrence.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are two assignments recorded in 2022, but the first is from the inventor to CardWare Inc., and the second is a "merger" involving CardWare Inc. This doesn't represent a rapid succession of transfers through different shell LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. The patent was issued on October 20, 2020. The first litigation case filed was in the Texas Eastern District Court (2:22-cv-00141), with the earliest public record for it in 2022. The assignment to CardWare Inc. (February 4, 2022) precedes this litigation by less than 6 months. However, given that the transfer was from the inventor, it might be part of the commercialization or formalization of ownership for an operating company rather than a pre-litigation maneuver for an NPE.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication from the provided information that Virtual Electric Inc. or David Wyatt underwent bankruptcy proceedings leading to the patent's sale.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While CardWare Inc. appears to be an operating company, and the patent is in active litigation, there's no explicit evidence from the provided text or search snippets of Virtual Electric Inc. (the original assignee) transferring the patent to CardWare Inc. specifically for assertion on its behalf against competitors. The initial transfer was from the inventor, not directly from Virtual Electric Inc.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The current assignee, CardWare Inc., is not a known defensive aggregator like RPX, AST, or LOT Network.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

While CardWare Inc. appears to be an operating company with relevant products, the timing of the inventor's assignment to CardWare Inc. (February 4, 2022) being within six months of the first recorded district court litigation (Texas Eastern District Court, 2:22-cv-00141, earliest public record in 2022) is a weak signal for pre-litigation transfer, even if the assignee is an operating company. The lack of clear product information for the original assignee, Virtual Electric Inc., also raises some ambiguity. The multiple PTAB cases filed by "Unified Patents PTAB Data" as a "Petitioner" [cite: IPR2023-00196, IPR2025-01148, IPR2025-01344] indicate the patent has been subject to validity challenges, which is common for asserted patents.

Verification of these assignments can be done via the USPTO Patent Assignment Search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The USPTO website provides a "Patent Public Search" tool for searching patents and patent application publications. To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10810579 and determine which claims it potentially anticipates, I need to access the full patent document from the USPTO database, specifically looking at the "References Cited" section.

Unfortunately, I cannot directly perform live searches within the USPTO Patent Public Search tool to retrieve the complete list of cited prior art for a given patent number. My current capabilities allow me to search for general information about the USPTO and how to conduct patent searches, but not to execute specific patent database queries and extract detailed citation lists directly from the USPTO system.

However, based on standard patent analysis practices, prior art typically includes:

• Other patent documents (both granted patents and published applications).
• Publications or documents describing similar concepts.
• Products or public displays/sales of products.
• Public knowledge about a product or invention.

During the patent examination process, a patent examiner conducts a prior art search to determine if an invention is novel and non-obvious. If prior art is found that is identical or very similar to the claimed invention, the application may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (for lack of novelty) or 35 U.S.C. § 103 (for obviousness).

To fulfill this request accurately, I would need to either:

1. Have direct access to the "References Cited" section of US10810579 from an authoritative source (like the Google Patents link provided in the initial prompt, which typically lists these citations).
2. Be able to perform a deep, structured search within the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool to extract the cited documents and then analyze each one.

Since I am unable to perform option 1 without being explicitly provided the citation list and am limited in my ability to perform option 2, I cannot definitively identify the most relevant prior art and which claims it potentially anticipates without that information.

An obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US patent 10810579, based on the provided patent text and the general state of the art around its priority date of March 15, 2013, suggests that certain combinations of existing technologies would have rendered the claims obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The patent itself describes three types of credit card technologies as background: conventional magnetic stripe cards, smart integrated circuit (IC) chip cards, and radio frequency identification (RFID) cards, along with their respective limitations regarding security and compatibility with existing infrastructure. [cite: The patent's own Background of the Invention section]

The "Prior art keywords" provided by Google Patents—user, payment, information, transaction, electronic device—confirm the broad technical domain but do not point to specific prior art documents. Therefore, this analysis relies on the capabilities of a PHOSITA at the priority date, considering the common knowledge of payment systems, portable electronic devices, and security practices.

Obviousness Analysis for Claim 1 (Apparatus for Emulating a Magnetic Stripe)

Claim 1 describes a thin, card-shaped body with memory, a processor, a user interface for selecting identification data, a magnetic card reader detection unit, and an inductor assembly that generates a magnetic field encoding the selected data, readable by a standard magnetic read head.

Known Elements by March 2013:

• Smart Cards with Processors, Memory, and User Interfaces: By 2013, smart cards (IC chip cards) with embedded processors and memory were well-known, capable of storing identification data. The desire for a single "multi-function electronic device" to manage multiple accounts, instead of carrying many cards, was also a recognized advantage, suggesting a motivation for a user interface (e.g., a small display and keypad or touch sensors) for selection. [cite: The patent's own Background of the Invention and Description sections describe existing smart cards and the advantage of storing multiple accounts.]
• Magnetic Stripe Emulation: The concept of dynamically generating a magnetic field to emulate a traditional magnetic stripe was emerging or already prototyped in various forms. This allowed non-standard devices (like dongles or early "universal cards") to interface with conventional magnetic stripe readers.
• Motion/Proximity Detection: Portable electronic devices commonly incorporated motion sensors (e.g., accelerometers) and optical sensors for detecting movement or proximity. The patent itself describes these as potential components for its motion detection unit (rate detection assembly 225, optical sensor array 230, and accelerometers 235). [cite: The patent's own Description, Movement Rate Feedback section]

Motivation for Combination:
The patent explicitly states a key problem: "cards employing smart integrated circuit chips and RF technology are not in wide use at present because they are incompatible with existing credit card infrastructure, which still predominantly supports conventional plastic credit cards." [cite: The patent's own Background of the Invention section] A PHOSITA would have been highly motivated to develop a smart card that offered advanced features (like managing multiple accounts via a user interface) but simultaneously ensured compatibility with the widespread existing magnetic stripe reader infrastructure. Combining a smart card's processing and user interface capabilities with known magnetic stripe emulation technology would be an obvious solution to bridge this compatibility gap. Furthermore, dynamically adjusting the magnetic field generation rate based on detected swipe speed (a concept also described in the patent as optimal for reader interpretation) would be a logical and desirable optimization for reliable emulation.

Obviousness Analysis for Claim 2 (Credit Card Device for Card-to-Card Transactions)

Claim 2 describes a credit card device with an NFC unit, a touch sensor array, a display, a motion rate detection array, memory, and a processor. It specifies initiating a card-to-card transaction by detected proximity and user input via the touch sensor, involving an exchange of stored currency and user data via the NFC unit.

Known Elements by March 2013:

• NFC Technology: Near-field communication (NFC) units were widely adopted in smartphones and contactless payment cards by 2013 for secure, short-range data exchange and payments.
• Smart Card Components: Processors, memory, displays, and touch sensor arrays were becoming common features in advanced smart cards and other portable electronic devices for user interaction and information display.
• Motion Detection: Motion rate detection arrays (e.g., accelerometers) were standard in portable devices for various purposes, including detecting user interaction or device context.
• Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Fund Transfers: The concept of P2P fund transfers was gaining traction, primarily through mobile applications leveraging technologies like NFC or Bluetooth.

Motivation for Combination:
A PHOSITA, observing the capabilities of NFC in mobile payments and the desire for enhanced functionality in smart cards, would have been motivated to extend P2P fund transfer capabilities directly to smart card devices. The patent's abstract mentions that the device "may interact with other similar devices in proximity for the purpose of funds or credit/debit transfers." Using NFC for proximate, secure communication in such a scenario is an obvious choice. Incorporating a touch sensor array for user input to authorize transactions, combined with proximity detection (e.g., via NFC or motion sensors), would be standard design considerations to ensure security and user control for financial transactions on a smart device.

Obviousness Analysis for Claim 3 (Method of Performing a Transaction with Limited-Duration Numbers)

Claim 3 outlines a method involving receiving user input to enable a previously disabled NFC unit, receiving a transaction currency amount, generating a limited-duration credit card number on the device, and transmitting this number to a transaction recipient.

Known Elements/Concepts by March 2013:

• Limited-Duration/Single-Use Payment Tokens (Tokenization): The concept of generating single-use or limited-duration payment numbers/tokens for enhanced security was known and implemented in various payment contexts (e.g., virtual card numbers for online transactions, EMV cryptograms generated by chip cards for specific transactions).
• User-Activated Wireless Communication: For security and power management, disabling wireless communication (like NFC) until explicitly activated by user input was a known practice in portable electronic devices (e.g., turning on Wi-Fi or Bluetooth only when needed). The patent itself highlights the security concern of "listening-in" on wireless communications and describes activating communication means only "prior to receiving an authenticated activation signal from a user." [cite: The patent's own Description, Security section]
• Smart Card Functionality: Smart cards with processors and memory were capable of generating cryptographic data, and a real-time clock (as described in the patent) would be a standard component for timestamping such generations. [cite: The patent's own Description, Limited-Duration Credit Card Number section]
• Receiving Transaction Information: Standard process in any payment system.

Motivation for Combination:
The primary motivation for this claim, as articulated in the patent, is to address significant security concerns regarding credit card theft and fraudulent transactions. The patent states: "Security is an area of concern for credit card holders, as the small form factor makes theft quite easy, and additionally there are many ways for a malicious third-party to record the account number of a credit card in order to later make fraudulent transactions on the account." [cite: The patent's own Description, Security section] A PHOSITA would be highly motivated to enhance the security of payment cards. Applying the known security principle of limited-duration payment numbers to a smart card, allowing on-card generation at the point of transaction, would be an obvious and effective way to prevent replay attacks and account compromise. Furthermore, disabling wireless communication (like NFC) until explicitly authorized by a user, and for a limited duration, directly addresses the "listening-in" vulnerability for wireless cards, which is also a stated concern in the patent. [cite: The patent's own Description, Security section] Combining these known security measures with smart card capabilities and standard transaction processes would be an obvious step for improving payment card security.

I cannot directly perform a live search of the USPTO database. However, I can extract and analyze the requested information from the provided authoritative patent text and the Google Patents summary, which includes data typically found in USPTO records, such as the "RELATED APPLICATIONS" section and priority information.

Here are the details for US patent 10810579:

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

The provided patent text and Google Patents summary do not explicitly state any Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) or Patent Term Extensions (PTE) for US patent 10810579.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

US patent 10810579 (Application No. 16/459,150) is part of a patent family with a complex prosecution history, tracing its lineage back to a provisional application.

• Parent Chain: US patent 10810579 is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/701,261 (now U.S. Pat. No. 10,339,520), filed September 11, 2017. [cite: The patent's own Description, RELATED APPLICATIONS section]
  • U.S. Pat. No. 10,339,520 was a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/981,757 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,760,884), filed December 28, 2015. [cite: The patent's own Description, RELATED APPLICATIONS section]
    • U.S. Pat. No. 9,760,884 was a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/680,979 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,224,083), filed April 7, 2015. [cite: The patent's own Description, RELATED APPLICATIONS section]
      • U.S. Pat. No. 9,224,083 was a Division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/217,261 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,022,286), filed March 17, 2014. [cite: The patent's own Description, RELATED APPLICATIONS section]
        • U.S. Pat. No. 9,022,286 claims priority from Provisional Application 61/794,891, filed March 15, 2013. [cite: The patent's own Description, RELATED APPLICATIONS section]

Related Family Members

The following related family members are identified, primarily through priority claims:

• US20190325428A1: This is the patent application publication corresponding to US patent 10810579 (Application No. US16/459,150).
• US10339520B2: (Application Ser. No. 15/701,261, filed Sep. 11, 2017) - Parent (Continuation) of US10810579. [cite: The patent's own Description, RELATED APPLICATIONS section]
• US9760884B2: (Application Ser. No. 14/981,757, filed Dec. 28, 2015) - Grandparent (Continuation) of US10810579. [cite: The patent's own Description, RELATED APPLICATIONS section]
• US9224083B2: (Application Ser. No. 14/680,979, filed Apr. 7, 2015) - Great-grandparent (Continuation) of US10810579. [cite: The patent's own Description, RELATED APPLICATIONS section]
• US9022286B2: (Application Ser. No. 14/217,261, filed Mar. 17, 2014) - Great-great-grandparent (Divisional) of US10810579. [cite: The patent's own Description, RELATED APPLICATIONS section]
• US11176538B2: Claims priority to application US17/075,637 (filed 2020-10-20), which in turn claims priority to US10810579. This indicates US11176538B2 is a child patent, likely a continuation or divisional of US10810579. [cite: The patent's own Google Patents "Priority to" links and associated patent links]
• US11620634B2: Claims priority to application US17/528,073 (filed 2021-11-16), which claims priority to US11176538B2 and US10810579. This indicates US11620634B2 is a child patent, likely a continuation or divisional. [cite: The patent's own Google Patents "Priority to" links and associated patent links]
• US12505423B2: Claims priority to application US18/125,624 (filed 2023-03-23), which claims priority to US11620634B2. This indicates US12505423B2 is a child patent, likely a continuation or divisional. [cite: The patent's own Google Patents "Priority to" links and associated patent links]
• US20260111870A1: (Publication of Application US19/429,187, filed 2025-12-22) claims priority to US18/125,624. This indicates it is a further child in the patent family. [cite: The patent's own Google Patents "Priority to" links and associated patent links]

Projected Expiration Date

The anticipated expiration date for US patent 10810579 is 2034-03-17. [cite: The patent's own Google Patents Legal status section] This date is based on the priority date of March 15, 2013, considering a 20-year patent term from the earliest non-provisional filing date to which it claims priority (March 17, 2014, for US9022286B2, which itself claims priority to the provisional application from March 15, 2013), and accounting for any potential adjustments.