US 11347949

I'll run several targeted searches for this exact patent number.

Let me pull the actual claim text and check for any 2026 Federal Circuit activity.

Summary — US Patent 11,347,949 (US 11,347,949 B2)

A caveat up front: I ran multiple searches (Google Patents, Justia, litigation/docket aggregators, CAFC sources). The authoritative Google Patents text supplied to me is truncated partway through the description (mid‑FIG. 30) and therefore does not include the claims or the abstract. I could not retrieve the literal claim set or abstract text. Below I separate verified data from inferred data, and I flag where I am uncertain.

1. Bibliographic data (verified from the Google Patents record and Justia)

Priority chain (continuation family): the record lists priority claims running from US 11/350,309 (filed 2006‑02‑07), through 11/382,052 / 11/382,050 / 11/382,053 / 11/382,264 / 11/382,054 / 11/382,265 / 11/420,721 / 11/458,620 (US 7,924,156) → 12/577,209 (US 8,816,826) → 14/660,825 (US 9,569,777) → 16/186,543 (US 11,170,185) → the present 17/522,697. Later continuations claiming priority to it include US 11,599,734 B2, US 11,689,612 B1, US 11,687,741 B1 and US 12,039,396 B2. This is the same Colby/Mynette family litigated in Mynette Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 1:16‑cv‑01647 (Fed. Cl.), which involved the ’425, ’156, ’458 and ’777 patents — not the ’949 patent.

Note on the title mismatch: the title is directed to a cellular device with an inductive antenna, but the bulk of the specification text is about RFID shielding, ePassport covers/pages, and switchable RFID tags. That is consistent with this being a continuation in which the claims are drawn to one embodiment (the cellular/RFID financial‑transaction embodiment) while the specification carries the earlier disclosure forward.

2. Abstract

I cannot provide the literal abstract with confidence. The abstract text did not appear in any of my retrievals, and I will not reconstruct one. What can be said from the disclosure itself: the specification describes a portable communication device (e.g., a cellular telephone) that uses two or more communication modes — cellular and a short‑range RFID/inductive mode — with an optionally switchable RFID tag, optionally powered from the device's own power source, optionally with a user interface or biometric approval gating the RFID/financial function. That is a description of subject matter in the specification, not a quotation of the abstract.

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview (partially verified)

I do not have verbatim claim text. Based on the specification and on claim‑construction material identified in the pending litigation, the independent claims appear to include:

• A system claim (Claim 1) directed to a cellular telephone embodying a circuit with an inductive coupling for short‑range (RFID/NFC) communication of financial/account data, in which an "electronic switch" controls a state of the circuit state (e.g., an authenticated/unlocked state versus a locked/unauthenticated state) and the ability to communicate the data is responsive to that state. The "electronic switch" is the key term identified for construction of Claim 1.
• Further independent subject matter in the specification (which may or may not correspond to issued independent claims) includes: a communication device with an 802.11 or cellular transmitter plus a user interface and a switchable RFID tag switching between active/inactive states; a communication device with two or more memory‑device slots selectable by a user to transmit first or second data (financial account information or a digital key); and RF‑powered remote‑control / tag on‑off methods.

Plain-language overview: the invention, as claimed here, is essentially a cell phone that can also act as an RFID/NFC payment or access device, where an electronic (software/hardware) switch gates whether the short‑range inductive communication of financial data can occur. It is a hardware/apparatus framing of the Colby family's earlier "switchable RFID tag" concept, recast onto a cellular handset with an inductive antenna.

Because the claim text was unavailable to me, treat the above as interpretive, not authoritative.

4. Litigation / post‑grant activity

District court (verified via search results):

• Surecell Transactions LLC v. [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.), No. 2:26‑cv‑00106 (E.D. Tex.). Google Patents lists this as a filed U.S. case in the Texas Eastern District Court. A complaint analysis indicates the ’949 patent is asserted against Samsung mobile devices and wearables, with NFC hardware alleged to be the claimed "inductive coupling" and processor/software state changes alleged to be the "electronic switch." The analysis flags "electronic switch" as the central claim‑construction dispute. I did not independently verify the complaint; treat this as secondary‑source information.

Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket:

• I found no Federal Circuit docket, appeal, or opinion involving US 11,347,949 or the Surecell/Mynette parties. My CAFC‑oriented searches returned only unrelated 2026 cases (e.g., Contour IP Holding v. GoPro 2026‑2012, Wipqtus v. Samsung 2025‑1596, Headwater Research v. Verizon 26‑1884). If an appeal exists, it was not surfaced; I cannot confirm one, and I am not asserting that none exists.

5. Identifiers I deliberately did not conflate

Several unrelated patents surfaced and should not be confused with US 11,347,949:

• US 7,395,479 (Teradyne, ATE voltage‑comparison) — a different "’479."
• US 8,274,494, US 11,292,349, US 7,679,637, WO 2017/027872, CN 101951281A, CA 2093938A1, US 2005/0294126 — these appear only in citation/family tables that happen to list US 11,347,949 B2 as a family member or cite it; their titles are not this patent's title.
• The "’479 patent" referenced in the Richards/Zhou IPR and the Rapid litigation is also not this patent.

6. Uncertainty statement

• High confidence: patent number, title, inventor, application number, filing date, issue date, assignees, and classification data (all consistent across Google Patents and Justia).
• Low / unverified: the abstract text, the verbatim independent claims, the exact count and scope of independent claims, and current ownership (Google Patents itself disclaims accuracy of assignee data).
• Date discrepancy: the source page metadata shows a fetch date of 2026‑09‑23 and lists the patent as "Expired – Lifetime," whereas the working date given to me is April 26, 2026 (before the listed May 7, 2026 expiration). I report the status as listed but cannot reconcile the dates.
• No CAFC 2026 activity for this patent was located, and I would need the actual claim text (USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Public Search) to give an authoritative independent‑claim overview.

I'll run targeted searches focused strictly on US 11,347,949 litigation.

I found a directly relevant case. Let me verify its details and search for any additional cases.

Let me check for any other cases, IPR petitions, or appeals involving this specific patent.

Litigation Involving US Patent 11,347,949 — Findings

Bottom line

One district-court case is known to assert US 11,347,949. It is a 2026 NPE suit filed by the Colby/Mynette-family monetization entity SureCell Transactions LLC against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas. I found no IPR/PGR petition, no ITC Section 337 investigation, and no Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. This is consistent with (and now substantially refines) the litigation paragraph in the previously generated section.

Case 1 (the only identified case)

Asserted patents (six, per the complaint as reported): U.S. 7,924,156; 11,347,949; 11,599,734; 11,687,741; 11,989,612; and 12,039,396. All are Colby/Mynette-family patents, and several are recorded continuations of the '949 patent.

Assertions specific to the '949 patent:

• Infringement theory: the accused Samsung Galaxy S / Note / Z Fold-Flip / A-series smartphones (plus Galaxy Watch wearables and Galaxy Tab tablets, and future/conceptual models such as "Galaxy Z Fold7" and "Galaxy S25 Ultra") are cellular telephones embodying the claimed system. Samsung's NFC hardware is alleged to be the claimed "inductive coupling"; the device's processor/software acting on NFC state is alleged to be the "electronic switch", with the ability to communicate financial data being responsive to an unlocked/authenticated versus locked/unauthenticated state.
• Both induced and contributory infringement are pleaded, along with willful infringement (treble damages requested) premised on notice "at least as early as the dates of service of this Complaint."
• Accused functionality: Samsung Pay / Samsung Wallet, Samsung Blockchain Wallet, third-party payment and financial apps, NFC payments at POS terminals, and NFC interaction with smart locks and automotive digital keys.
• Center of gravity for this case: the term "electronic switch" is flagged as the key claim-construction dispute, across both the '949 and '741 patents — i.e., whether software-mediated gating of NFC on a general-purpose SoC reads on a claimed "switch," or whether the term requires a discrete hardware component as suggested by embodiments such as the sliding switch (FIG. 25A) and membrane switch (FIG. 26A).

Negative findings (searched, nothing located)

• PTAB: No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against US 11,347,949 was located. (Note: a document in the Western Digital v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, IPR2024‑01494 record, and the Apple v. Samsung ITC materials, contain a "…949, '697, '501" string referring to US 7,479,949 — the Apple touch-screen patent — and not to US 11,347,949. Do not conflate.)
• Federal Circuit: no appeal involving US 11,347,949 or the SureCell/Samsung case was surfaced. The case is too new for an appeal of a final judgment, though an interlocutory appeal (e.g., § 1292(a)(1) or § 1292(b)) or mandamus petition cannot be ruled out and I did not confirm one either way.
• ITC: no Section 337 complaint naming the '949 patent found.
• Other defendants: no additional complaints against other parties (e.g., Apple, Google) involving this patent were located. The Ex Parte docket entity page reports SureCell Transactions LLC with 1 case total, 1 active.

Contradictions / items to flag against the earlier-generated section

1. Case number and party match — no contradiction. The earlier section's reference to "Surecell Transactions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00106 (E.D. Tex.)" is confirmed, and this analysis adds the filing date (2026‑02‑12), division, judges, and the $500M demand.
2. Flagged identifier discrepancy: the earlier summary listed a continuation as "US 11,689,612 B1." The Google Patents family data lists "US11989612B1," and the complaint analysis lists "U.S. Patent No. 11,989,612." Per the strict no-auto-correction rule I am not silently rewriting the earlier text, but these two identifiers are not the same number and the earlier rendering appears to be a transposition. The asserted patent in this case is 11,989,612.
3. Anticipated-expiration date: the earlier section flagged a date conflict (working date vs. listed "Expired – Lifetime / anticipated expiration 2026‑05‑07"). Nothing in today's results resolves it; I report it as unresolved rather than reconciling it.

Confidence and limitations

• High confidence: existence, parties, court, case number, filing date, judges, nature of suit, $500M demand, and the six asserted patents including 11,347,949.
• Secondary-source basis: the infringement theory, asserted claims, and "electronic switch" construction dispute come from a third-party complaint-analysis page (ai-lab.exparte.com) and Korean trade press (the-biz.co.kr), not from the complaint itself or from PACER/Westlaw. Verified only as reported.
• Not verified: the complete defendant list (the "et al" in the caption), any amended complaints or added defendants, damages theories beyond the lump-sum demand, and any subsequent docket activity after the aggregator snapshot (the aggregator itself labels the docket incomplete).
• I hit a tool-step limit before completing a final confirmation pass on CAFC/ITC dockets; I therefore state the absence of CAFC and ITC activity as "none located," not as an affirmative representation that none exists.

I'll verify what's publicly available for this proceeding and cross-check the litigation/appeal picture.

The IPR was filed only one day ago. Let me confirm the PTAB record and check for anything else on this patent family.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file against US 11,347,949: IPR2026-00507 ([[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.)), filed 2026-09-22 and still pending with no institution decision, no POPR, and no merits ruling of any kind — meaning that as of today (2026-09-23) the patent is wholly untested at the PTAB, no claim has been canceled, no estoppel has attached, and the defensive posture for a defendant is not "the patent is hardened by prior IPR survivorship" but rather "this is a one-day-old petition in an unusually fast-moving, parallel-litigation posture, where the real question is whether the Board institutes at all."

Two framing points that materially change the defensive read:

1. The petition is one day old. The structured record shows filed 2026-09-22, last modified 2026-09-22. Nothing beyond the filing exists to report — no panel assignment, no grounds summary, no POPR, no § 314(b) decision. I will not speculate on grounds, art, or panel.
2. The patent is listed as Expired – Lifetime with an anticipated expiration of 2026-05-07 (Google Patents). If that status is accurate, a defendant is facing a past-damages-only exposure (no injunction as of right under eBay, § 286 six-year lookback), and the PTAB proceeding is being run against an expired patent — which forecloses any meaningful claim-amendment strategy for the patent owner.

I could not locate any PTAB proceeding, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal involving US 11,347,949 other than IPR2026-00507. Because the record is one day old, this is an expected absence, not evidence of a weak petition.

⚠️ Flagged contradiction (from the earlier-generated sections): the previously generated summary noted the working date given to it was April 26, 2026, while the Google Patents fetch and this prompt state 2026-09-23. If the earlier April date were operative, IPR2026-00507 (filed 2026-09-22) could not yet exist. I treat 2026-09-23 as operative per this prompt and the structured ODP block, but the discrepancy should be resolved before any deadline is calendared.

IPR2026-00507 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Surecell Transactions, LLC (patent owner identification unconfirmed on the PTAB docket)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (IPR) — AIA trial under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Not a PGR or CBM (the '949 has a 2005 priority date, so PGR eligibility expired long ago, and CBM review is unavailable post-SAS/post-§ 18 sunset).
• Filed: 2026-09-22
• Status: Pending (verbatim from the structured data: "status: Pending"; last modified 2026-09-22). Plain-English gloss: petition filed and docketed; no notice of accord of filing date, no POPR, no institution decision, no trial.
• Judge panel: Not yet public. Panels are typically assigned at or shortly before the institution decision; no APJ names are available.
• Petition grounds: Not yet public. I did not retrieve the petition, and I will not guess at the claims challenged, the art, or the statutory basis. (For what it is worth, the asserted-patent family is RFID/NFC cellular device art, so § 102/§ 103 challenges on RFID/NFC prior art would be the expected vehicle — but that is inference, not record.)
• Institution decision: None. Statutory framework: under § 314(b), the Director's institution determination is due within 3 months after the earlier of the POPR filing date or the expiration of the POPR period. Patent Owner's POPR is presumptively due ~2026-12-22 (with possible stipulated extension under current Board practice), putting the outside institution deadline around ~2027-03-22. Treat that as an estimate, not a docketed date.
• Final Written Decision: None. If instituted ~March 2027, the FWD deadline under § 316(a)(11) is one year from institution, i.e., ~March 2028. One-year FWD deadlines are extendable for good cause (§ 316(a)(11) allows up to 6 months).
• Settlement / termination: None. No termination, no joinder, no adverse judgment. If the E.D. Tex. case settles, expect the patent owner to seek termination; terms would almost certainly be confidential.
• Appeal: None. § 319 appeal to the Federal Circuit is only available after an FWD, so no CAFC docket can exist yet. As of the earlier section's searches, no Federal Circuit activity involving US 11,347,949 or the Surecell/Mynette parties was located; I did not re-verify that today.
• Defensive value: Near zero for today's defendant on estoppel grounds — § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only after an FWD, so this petition gives a co-defendant no estoppel cover. Its actual value is strategic: (a) if institution is granted, it supports a motion to stay the E.D. Tex. case (Judge Gilstrap's stay practice is the practical battleground, not the merits); (b) it preserves Samsung's invalidity position against the other asserted family members only to the extent it is followed up; and (c) a denial of institution would be a meaningful negative signal for patent owner leverage in the parallel case.

Note on the parallel litigation (necessary context, not a PTAB event): Surecell Transactions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., No. 2:26-cv-00106 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division; Judge Rodney Gilstrap; filed 2026-02-12; ~$500M demand; jury demand). The '949 is one of six asserted Colby-family patents (the '156, '949, '734, '741, '612, and '396). The complaint's infringement theory, per a secondary-source complaint analysis, maps the accused Samsung NFC hardware to the claimed "inductive coupling" and the processor/software authentication-state change to the claimed "electronic switch," with "electronic switch" identified as the central claim-construction dispute for the '949 (likely Claim 1). I have not independently verified the complaint's asserted-claim list; treat it as secondary.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. No claim of US 11,347,949 has been canceled, narrowed, confirmed, or even addressed on the merits by the Board. There is no FWD to link to, no certificate under § 318(b) issued, and therefore no claim-level landscape to report — claims 1 through the last claim are, as a matter of PTAB record, exactly as issued. Any statement that the patent "has survived an IPR" would be false; any statement that a claim "is dead" would be fabrication. The earlier-generated summary's caveat that it lacked the verbatim claim text still stands, and the PTAB record does nothing to cure it. I would obtain the issued claims from USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter before drafting anything claim-specific.

Estoppel landscape: none yet, and that is the point. Under § 315(e)(2), estoppel runs only from a final written decision. A pending, uninstituted petition creates no bar for Samsung and certainly none for any other defendant. Concretely for a defendant being asserted today:

• All prior-art grounds remain available in district court — both § 102/§ 103 printed publications and system-art/product-art grounds, which are unavailable in an IPR anyway (§ 311(b) limits IPRs to patents and printed publications).
• § 315(b) one-year clock: the E.D. Tex. complaint was filed 2026-02-12. Assuming service on or about that date, the window for additional IPR petitions by any defendant served in that case closes around 2027-02-12. Any defendant served later has its own one-year clock. This is the single most time-critical item on the calendar.
• § 315(e)(1) (Office) estoppel would only bind Samsung in a later Board proceeding after an FWD on the same grounds.

Pattern signals. Three things stand out. First, this is a single-petition, single-patent challenge, not a coordinated multi-patent IPR campaign — Samsung has not (yet) filed parallel petitions against the five sibling patents it was sued on, even though the same one-year § 315(b) clock applies to all of them. Samsung is a sophisticated, high-volume PTAB petitioner (see its multiple IPR/PGR families against Netlist, Wilus/Sisvel, and others in 2025–2026), so a lone petition against one of six asserted patents is more consistent with a staged or stay-oriented filing than a full invalidity campaign. Second, the patent owner side (Colby/Mynette → Colby Trust → Surecell Transactions, LLC, assignment recorded 2026-01-15) shows no history of PTAB appeals or aggressive motion-to-amend practice that I could verify; the family's prior Article III litigation was Mynette Technologies, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 1:16-cv-01647) involving the '425, '156, '458, and '777 patents — the '949 was not part of it. Third, no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in the chain for this patent; the challenger is the accused defendant itself, which means the petition's scope and any settlement are within Samsung's control.

Two substantive dynamics worth pricing in. (i) Discretionary denial is a live risk in this environment. The current Board/Director practice (e.g., Magnolia Medical Techs., Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., IPR2026-00097, precedential 2026-05-14; Tesla, Inc. v. Bulletproof Prop. Mgmt., IPR2026-00204 et al., informative 2026-06-15) makes parallel-litigation duplication, timing relative to trial, stipulation breadth, and "settled expectations" of the patent owner express discretionary factors. With a 2026-02-12 complaint and a 2026-09-22 petition, a patent owner will argue the petition is litigation-driven and that settled expectations attached to a family dating to 2005 — while Samsung will argue a broad Sotera-style stipulation and that the Board is a true substitute for the district court. The institution-stage briefing, not the merits, will likely decide this case's PTAB fate. (ii) The expired-patent problem. If the 2026-05-07 expiration is correct, the '949's claims can no longer be amended to enlarge scope, the patent owner's amendment runway is essentially gone, and any IPR outcome is a pure kill-and-confirm exercise — which also removes one of the traditional reasons a patent owner fights institution.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the actual petition and any Notice of Accord. The authoritative public source is PTAB E2E / the USPTO PTAB Petitions portal under proceeding IPR2026-00507 (https://ptab.uspto.gov). The petition PDF, the § 42.104 mandatory notices (real parties in interest, related matters), the asserted grounds, and the § 42.104(b) claim-by-claim basis are all public on filing, even though the ODP summary is sparse. Confirm (a) the exact claims challenged, (b) the named RPIs, and (c) whether Samsung filed a Fintiv/Sotera stipulation, which is now materially outcome-determinative under Magnolia/Tesla.
2. Calibrate the calendar off the filing date. POPR presumptively due ~2026-12-22 (extendable); § 314(b) institution deadline ~2027-03-22; if instituted, § 316(a)(11) FWD due ~2028-03 unless extended up to six months. § 315(b) cutoff for further petitions on the five sibling asserted patents: ~2027-02-12. Verify actual service dates from the 2:26-cv-00106 docket rather than assuming.
3. Coordinate with the E.D. Tex. case, not around it. Because estoppel does not attach until an FWD, a co-defendant should not assume Samsung's petition protects it. If you are a different defendant served in the same case, the one-year § 315(b) window is running independently; and if the case has an early Markman/trial setting, video-deposition-free expert discovery and the Fintiv-style discretionary analysis in Judge Gilstrap's court (should it exist at the relevant time), not the PTAB's merits, will drive whether a stay is realistic.
4. Brief "electronic switch" now. The secondary-source complaint analysis identifies "electronic switch" as the pivotal construction for the '949 (and the '741). If the patent owner's theory is that a processor-mediated authentication state change is an "electronic switch," a § 112 indefiniteness or a specification-disclosure-disclaimer construction argument (the disclosure's mechanical/membrane switch embodiments are a long way from an SoC state machine) is the highest-leverage non-PTAB defense and is preserved regardless of whether the IPR is instituted.
5. Do not represent to a court or client that any claim is invalidated. There is no FWD. If asked for the disposition, the accurate statement is: "One IPR petition is pending, filed 2026-09-22, no institution decision as of [date]." Flag the April 26, 2026 vs. September 23, 2026 working-date discrepancy in your own file before relying on any of the estimated deadlines above.

I'll run targeted searches against the assignment records and NPE directories before writing up.

Let me probe the assignment-specific details and attorney correspondents.

Analyst's note on sourcing

I was unable to retrieve the actual USPTO Assignment Center records (reel/frame numbers, correspondent of record) for US 11,347,949. The Google Patents record you supplied does expose a legal-events assignment chain (assignor/assignee/date), and that is what the timeline below is built on. Reel/frame numbers, execution dates (as distinct from recording dates), and the correspondent attorney of record are not something I could verify, and I will not invent them. Treat every "Reel —" line below as an open item to be filled from https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. My searches also returned a name — Gregory M. Howison, Reg. #30646 — in an unrelated PTAB filing, not in this chain; I am deliberately not reporting him as this patent's correspondent.

Inventors

Unusual patterns — present and material.

• Single-inventor, self-assigned chain. There is no corporate co-inventor and no employee-invention assignment agreement. The inventor is the transferor at every link until 2016. This is the classic shape of an inventor-controlled assertion portfolio rather than a corporate R&D spin-out.
• No inventor departure issue (that tell is inapplicable with one inventor who is also the assignor/principal). The inverse tell is present instead: the inventor never left — he retained an ownership stake through a trust and stayed on the assignee's board.
• Inventor/owner doubles as litigant. In Mynette Techs. v. United States, No. 16-1647 (Fed. Cl.), Colby was dismissed as a plaintiff for lack of standing (he had assigned "all rights, title and interest" and held "less than all substantial rights"), while remaining an officer, director and shareholder of the plaintiff NPE.

Original assignee

Mynette Technologies, Inc. (Menlo Park / Verdi, CA–NV), named as assignee on the face of US 11,347,949.

• Primary line of business: patent licensing and litigation. Nothing else. The Court of Federal Claims record is unusually blunt: defendants argued — and the court accepted the framing — that "litigation is Mynette's only business activity" (Mynette Techs. v. United States, No. 16-1647, Opinion and Order, ECF 153/187, discussing the Blackbird Tech prosecution bar and covenant not to sue).
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? No evidence of any. The accused products in the family litigation were third-party: U.S. e-passports (government), and the passport hardware of Gemalto/Thales and IDEMIA as intervenors. Mynette did not make passports or RFID inlays.
• Current status: assigned away. On the Google Patents legal-events record, Mynette transferred the '949 to Surecell Transactions, LLC on 2026-01-15. Mynette remains the plaintiff-of-record on older family litigation; there is no bankruptcy, dissolution or SEC-reporting event (Mynette is private and files no 10-K/8-K, so no SEC cross-reference is available — that absence is itself consistent with a non-operating entity).
• Litigation sanctions history: the court in Mynette v. United States imposed terminating sanctions (Dec. 5, 2022) because Mynette's counsel, Robert Yorio, failed to disclose his ownership interest and board position in Mynette while negotiating an attorneys-eyes-only protective order, and required a broad covenant not to sue covering "all of Mynette's current and future patents… related to the technology in discovery." That covenant is a documented encumbrance on the family and worth checking against the '949 for a license/standing defense.

Assignment timeline

Sources: Google Patents legal-events block for US 11,347,949; Mynette Techs. v. United States, No. 16-1647 (Fed. Cl.) claim-construction opinion (for the 2016 family assignments). Dates below are the USPTO recording dates as surfaced by Google Patents; executed dates and reel/frame were not retrievable.

• 2005-05-06 (priority) — no assignment. Context: priority date assumed by Google Patents for the family.
• 2016-09-25 (executed; recorded date not retrieved) — Reel — (not retrieved)
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Steven M. Colby (individually)
  • Assignee: Steven M. Colby Trust
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — no recurrence call possible.
  • Context: estate-planning / asset-holding step inserted between the inventor and his NPE; recited in the Fed. Cl. claim-construction opinion for the ’156, ’425, ’825 and ’907 filings (the ’949's ancestor line).
• 2016-09-26 (executed; recorded date not retrieved) — Reel — (not retrieved)
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Steven M. Colby Trust
  • Assignee: Mynette Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: transfer-to-asserter; two-step Colby → trust → Mynette sequence completed in 24 hours.
• 2022-02-22 (record date per Google Patents) — Reel — (not retrieved)
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Google Patents: "reassignment")
  • Assignor: Colby, Steven M
  • Assignee: Colby Trust, Steven M
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: internal reorg / asset-holding step — the same trust-then-company pattern repeated, this time mere months before the '949 issued.
• 2022-02-25 (record date per Google Patents) — Reel — (not retrieved)
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Google Patents: "reassignment")
  • Assignor: Colby Trust, Steven M
  • Assignee: Mynette Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: internal reorg — re-consolidation into the NPE of record three days later, so the printed patent and the assignment record both name Mynette.
• 2026-01-15 (record date per Google Patents) — Reel — (not retrieved)
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Google Patents: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Mynette Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: Surecell Transactions, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — this is the single most important missing field in the whole chain; it is the link that would show whether a repeat NPE-recording attorney runs both Mynette and Surecell.
  • Context: transfer-to-asserter, timed to litigation. The '949 was conveyed to Surecell 28 days before Surecell filed suit.

Findings on the records themselves: (a) the pre-issuance 2022-02-22/25 pair shows the trust vehicle is used every time, not once; (b) the 2026-01-15 → 2026-02-12 gap of 28 days is the operative pre-litigation transfer; (c) all reel/frame and all correspondent fields are unverified in this analysis.

Discrepancy to flag (per your instruction to surface contradictions): the co-pending members of the Samsung suit are reported inconsistently across sources. Google Patents' family block lists US 11,599,734 B2, US 11,687,741 B1, US 11,989,612 B1, US 12,039,396 B2; the earlier-generated summary in this project rendered two of these as "US 11,689,612 B1" and "US 11,687,741 B1"; a Korean trade-press account renders them "11,687,741" and "11,989,612." These are transcription conflicts, not a legal finding — but at least one rendering is wrong and the asserted-patent list should be taken from the complaint itself.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11347949
    2005 : Colby files first RFID application
    2006 : Related switchable tag applications filed
    2016 : Colby assigns family to Colby Trust
         : Colby Trust assigns family to Mynette
    2021 : Application 17/522697 filed
    2022 : Issued as US 11347949
         : Colby assigns 949 to Colby Trust
         : Colby Trust assigns 949 back to Mynette
    2026 : Mynette assigns 949 to Surecell Transactions
         : Surecell sues Samsung in EDTX Marshall

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
Concrete evidence, not naming: (i) the Fed. Cl. record establishes that the intermediate Steven M. Colby Trust exists solely to hold the portfolio between the individual inventor and the company, and it was used twice — 2016-09-25/26 for the ancestor filings and again 2022-02-22/25 for the '949; (ii) the Fed. Cl. court recorded that "litigation is Mynette's only business activity," which is a judicial statement that Mynette is non-operating; (iii) the 2026-01-15 conveyance to Surecell Transactions, LLC precedes the only known commercial use of the patent by 28 days, so the LLC's function in this chain is litigation and nothing else. Caveat: I could not verify Surecell's state of formation, registered agent, or single-membership — the "Transactions LLC" suffix alone proves nothing, and I am not resting the finding on it.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT as to the enumerated lists; UNCLEAR as to RPX/Unified.
Neither Mynette Technologies, Inc. nor Surecell Transactions, LLC appears in the enumerated set (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). What I do have is adjacent: Surecell appears in the Unified Patents litigation portal as the plaintiff in Texas E.D. case 2:26-cv-00106, the "Ex Parte" party page classifies it as an operating company (an automated label, which I do not credit), and Korean trade press describes it flatly as "美 NPE." I could not open an RPX or Unified asserter-directory entry for Surecell, so I cannot make the "public NPE list" call either way.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT VERIFIABLE.
The correspondent field is the single most valuable datum here and it is exactly the field I could not retrieve. This patent family has three recordings in the ancestor line (2016-09-25, 2016-09-26) plus four in the '949 line (2022-02-22, 2022-02-25, 2026-01-15) plus the parallel recordings on US 11,599,734 / 11,687,741 / 11,989,612 / 12,039,396. If the same correspondent appears on the 2016 trust→Mynette pair and the 2026 Mynette→Surecell link, that is a textbook recurrence finding. I am recording this as an open verification item rather than guessing. I decline to name Gregory M. Howison: he surfaced only in an unrelated PTAB petition snippet.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT.
Two documented rapid chains: 2016-09-25 → 2016-09-26 (Colby → Colby Trust → Mynette, under 24 hours) and 2022-02-22 → 2022-02-25 (Colby → Colby Trust → Mynette, three days) on the '949 itself. Both link the same two principals by construction (Colby as settlor/assignor; Mynette as end holder). The 2016 pattern is recited verbatim in the Fed. Cl. claim-construction opinion, so it is court-corroborated rather than inferred.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (strongest single signal).
Assignment recorded 2026-01-15 (Mynette → Surecell Transactions, LLC); Surecell Transactions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00106 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., Judge Rodney Gilstrap), filed 2026-02-12, demand $500,000,000, jury demand by plaintiff, asserting six patents including the '949. 28 days. The venue choice (Marshall Division, Gilstrap) and the six-patent shotgun plead are consistent with an assertion vehicle assembled for this filing, and the transfer is within the 6-month window you flagged.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 filing by Colby, the Colby Trust, Mynette, or Surecell surfaced. The 2026 conveyance is a private transaction, not a §363 sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
There is no operating company anywhere in the transferor chain. Colby is an individual inventor who is also a patent prosecutor; Mynette and Surecell are non-operating. Nothing here looks like Apple/Nokia-style privateering — the assertion is originating from the inventor-controlled side, not being farmed out by a practicing manufacturer. (Note the direction differs from classic privateering, but the effect on Samsung is the same.)

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at an asserting plaintiff (Surecell), not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Inverse of neutralization.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two independent strong signals plus corroboration: (a) the 2026-01-15 Mynette → Surecell Transactions, LLC assignment lands 28 days before the 2026-02-12 filing of Surecell v. Samsung, 2:26-cv-00106 (E.D. Tex.), with a $500M demand — a clean pre-litigation transfer-to-asserter (Signal 5); and (b) the Federal Circuit-adjacent record in Mynette Techs. v. United States, No. 16-1647, states that "litigation is Mynette's only business activity" and imposes sanctions plus a portfolio-wide covenant not to sue for counsel's undisclosed ownership stake — direct evidence of a non-operating licensing/assertion entity, reinforced by the twice-used Colby Trust conduit (Signal 1 and Signal 4). Signal 2 is not established against the enumerated NPE lists and Signal 3 is unverified, so the verdict rests on (a) and (b) rather than on any inference from entity naming.

Action items to close the record (all require the actual Assignment Center filings):

1. Pull reel/frame, execution date, and correspondent of record for the 2022-02-22, 2022-02-25 and 2026-01-15 recordings — the 2026 correspondent is the decisive recurrence test.
2. Cross-check the same correspondent against the recordings on US 11,599,734, US 11,687,741/11,687,741, US 11,989,612/11,989,612 and US 12,039,396 to see whether one lawyer recorded the entire six-patent assertion set.
3. Confirm Surecell's formation date, state, registered agent and membership; if it was formed within months of the 2026-01-15 recording, Signal 1 upgrades from present to conclusive.

Search/verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — search patent number 11347949 (and application 17/522,697). Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11347949/en. Litigation docket reference: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00106.

I'll search for the patent's citation data and prior art references.

Let me dig into the specific citation tables and claim text.

Let me try to access the citation tables directly.

Scope note and a hard limitation up front

I ran searches against Google Patents, Justia, and patent-office full-text/ISR sources. Two things you need to know before reading the analysis:

1. I could not retrieve the front‑page "References Cited" / "Patent Citations" table for US 11,347,949 B2. The authoritative Google Patents text supplied for this analysis is truncated mid‑FIG. 30 and stops before the claims, the abstract, and the front‑page citation lists. My external searches returned citation tables for other documents (e.g., the ISRs of WO 2019/108898 A1, WO 2016/154192 A1, WO 2016/015155 A1, PCT/US2018/063253, etc.) — not the citation table of the '949 patent. So I cannot honestly enumerate "each patent citation for 11347949" as it appears on the front page. Anything I present below is drawn from the description of the '949 patent itself (the "patent documents cited in the description") plus the priority/family table, which is the best verifiable proxy — not the prosecution citation list.
2. I did not query the USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter API directly — my tool is a general web search. Where I say "USPTO," treat it as "USPTO‑derived public records surfaced via Google Patents / Justia."

Also flagging a contradiction with the previously generated section: that section noted the working date as April 26, 2026 while the source metadata showed a fetch date of 2026‑09‑23. The record I retrieved lists the patent as "Expired – Lifetime," anticipated expiration 2026‑05‑07 — which is inconsistent with the given "today" of 2026‑04‑26 (the patent would still be in force on 2026‑04‑26). I cannot reconcile the dates and report status as listed. Additionally, that section's caveat stands: I still do not have verbatim claim text for the '949 patent.

1. What the record itself tells us about the prior-art field

From the Google Patents record (authoritative, supplied):

Statutory framework point (important for any §102 analysis): the '949 patent is a continuation claiming the 2005‑05‑06 / 2006‑02‑07 priority chain. If the claims are supported by that priority (no new matter), their effective filing date predates March 16, 2013, and the pre‑AIA version of 35 U.S.C. §102 governs — i.e., §102(a), (b), (e), and (g), not AIA §102(a)(1)/(a)(2). This matters because much of what superficially "looks like" the invention post‑dates 2005 and would be irrelevant. I state this as a framework, not as a legal conclusion; if any claim is not entitled to the 2005 priority, the analysis changes.

2. Patent documents cited in the description of the '949 patent (the verifiable proxy)

The following are expressly referenced in the '949 specification text. They are overwhelmingly directed to RF shielding, holders/wallets, and foldable/clamshell identity and transaction cards — i.e., the shielding embodiments — not to the cellular/inductive‑antenna subject matter named in the '949 title.

Candid §102 bottom line for this set: on their face, none of these references anticipates the cellular‑device/inductive‑antenna claims implied by the '949 title. They are cited to support the shielding / identity‑document disclosure that the continuation carries forward from the 2005 priority family. Any §102 mapping to specific '949 claim numbers is not possible for me to make responsibly without the literal claim text, which is absent from the supplied record and which my searches did not surface. I will not assign claim numbers speculatively.

3. Same‑family documents (not prior art; listed so they are not confused with it)

The priority table shows the '949 is a link in a chain. Under the same‑family doctrine these are the inventor's own earlier/later disclosures, not §102 art against the '949:

• US 7,719,425 B2 — from 11/350,309 (2006‑02‑07)
• US 7,924,156 B2 — from 11/458,620 (2006‑07‑19)
• US 8,816,826 B2 — from 12/577,209 (2009‑10‑12)
• US 9,569,777 B2 — from 14/660,825 (2015‑03‑17)
• US 11,170,185 B2 — from 16/186,543 (2018‑11‑11)
• US 2015/0294126 A1 — "Mechanically Programmable RFID" (a sibling in the same 2005‑05‑06 family; the search hit patents.google.com/patent/US20150294126 lists US11347949B2 in its family table)
• Later continuations claiming priority to the '949 (per the record): US 11,599,734 B2 (from 17/697,923), US 11,689,612 B1 (from 17/728,412), US 11,687,741 B1 (from 17/952,176), US 12,039,396 B2 (from 18/422,929). These post‑date the '949 and are not prior art.

4. False positives — DO NOT attribute these to the '949 patent

My citation‑table searches returned documents from other patents' search reports. None of the following is a citation of, or cited by, US 11,347,949 on the basis of anything I actually retrieved. Treat them as noise unless verified on the '949 front page:

• US 9,331,489 B2 (CyboEnergy, solar mini‑inverters) — a different "489," surfaced via a Unified Patents PATROLL contest page unrelated to the '949.
• US 8,861,166 B2 (Illinois Tool Works); US 4,901,194 A (Steinman); US 2016/0051713 A1 (Robert) — these appear in the ISR of WO 2019/108898 A1 / PCT/US2018/063253, not in the '949.
• US 2015/226621 A1, US 2020/236479 A1, US 2014/257051 A1 — from the ISR of WO 2022/094089 A1 / PCT/US2021/057064, a different case.
• US 7,395,479 (Teradyne) and the "’479" in the Richards/Zhou IPR — as the prior section correctly warned, not this patent.
• US 8,274,494, US 11,292,349, US 7,679,637, WO 2017/027872, CN 101951281A, CA 2093938A1, US 2005/0294126 — appear only in family/citation tables that happen to list the '949 as a member; their subject matter is unrelated.

5. What I would need to complete this task authoritatively

To give you a genuine, claim‑mapped §102 chart, I need:

1. The literal claim set of US 11,347,949 B2 (USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter, or the granted‑patent PDF). The supplied full text is truncated before the claims; without them, no honest anticipation mapping is possible.
2. The front‑page "References Cited" (U.S. Patent Documents / Foreign Patent Documents / Other Publications) from the '949 itself — ideally from the granted PDF, which I could not retrieve here. Since this is a continuation, that list likely overlaps the parent's, but I will not assume it.
3. The prosecution file history (any §102/§103 rejections and the references applied), to distinguish examiner‑cited art from applicant‑cited background art.

Verification status: bibliographic data (number, title, inventor, application 17/522,697, filing 2021‑11‑09, grant 2022‑05‑31, assignee chain Mynette → Colby Trust → Surecell Transactions LLC) is high‑confidence. The description‑cited references above are high‑confidence as citations within the spec but their dates are unverified this session and their §102 effect is conditional on claim text I do not have. I have deliberately not manufactured a citation list or a claim‑number chart.

I'll run targeted searches for the claim text, the cited prior art, and the §103 record before analyzing.

Let me search for the specific claims and the cited prior art references on this patent's page.

Preliminary note on the evidence base

Before the analysis, two disclosure limits you should weigh:

1. The "Prior Art" section of the US 11,347,949 page as supplied to me is truncated. What the fetched record contains is the prior-art metadata only — "Prior art date: 2005-05-06" and "Prior art keywords: switch / rfid tag / rfid / tag / circuit." The "References Cited" table (U.S. Patent Documents, Foreign Documents, Other Publications) did not survive truncation, so I cannot chart against the examiner-of-record's actual cited art. I have instead assembled references from the surrounding record and from secondary sources, and I identify each one's provenance.
2. I still do not have verbatim claim text. The closest thing to authoritative claim language I could obtain is a litigation analysis that paraphrases Claim 1. I flag every place I rely on it.

Where my searches and the supplied page text conflict, I follow the page. I also continue to treat US 11,292,349 (WiTricity/Fells inductive charging, IPR2023-01089/01090) as an unrelated patent — it is not this patent, despite the shared "349" substring.

1. Threshold issue: the priority date decides the entire §103 analysis

This is not a formality here — it is the whole case.

Google Patents records the prior-art date as 2005-05-06, expressly "an assumption and not a legal conclusion," deriving from the chain running through US 11/350,309 (filed 2006-02-07) → 11/382,0xx series → 11/458,620 (US 7,924,156) → 12/577,209 (US 8,816,826) → 14/660,825 (US 9,569,777) → 16/186,543 (US 11,170,185) → 17/522,697 (this patent, filed 2021-11-09).

The text actually relied on by Claim 1 — a cellular telephone with an inductive coupling and an electronic switch gating communication — is the portable-communication-device embodiment described in the specification near FIG. 35/36 ("a portable communication device such as a cellular telephone, a blackberry, a wireless personal digital assistant… includes an optionally switchable RFID tag…"). Nothing in the supplied record establishes that this embodiment was present in the 2005/2006 filings. The specification's own cross-references point forward to later filings (e.g., "See U.S. non-provisional patent application 11/350,309 filed Feb. 7, 2006"; "See U.S. Pat. No. 7,719,425 issued May 18, 2010"), which is at least consistent with staged addition of subject matter across the chain.

That produces two mutually exclusive regimes:

Practical consequence: under Branch A the patent is difficult to invalidate with the references I can actually cite, and the case turns almost entirely on written-description/priority (§112 ¶1) rather than §103. Under Branch B the patent is very exposed, including to self-collision against its own family. Any invalidity contention should attack priority first, because winning that issue converts the family's own 2011–2021 patents into §102(a)(1)/pre-AIA §102(b) art that §103(c) common ownership does not remove.

2. The claim to be analyzed

Reconstructed Claim 1 (paraphrased from a complaint analysis of Surecell Transactions LLC v. [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.), No. 2:26-cv-00106, E.D. Tex.; not verbatim):

An electronic communication system comprising: a cellular telephone configured to communicate wirelessly using an inductive coupling, wherein the inductive coupling is part of a circuit including an electronic switch configured to change between states of the circuit, and configured to communicate via the inductive coupling responsive to the states of the circuit.

Decomposed:

• 1(a) an electronic communication system
• 1(b) a cellular telephone
• 1(c) configured to communicate wirelessly using an inductive coupling
• 1(d) the inductive coupling is part of a circuit
• 1(e) the circuit includes an electronic switch configured to change between states of the circuit
• 1(f) communication via the inductive coupling is responsive to the states of the circuit

The complaint enumerates dependent claims 2–8, 10–12, 14–24, 26–30, which (by the gaps at 9, 13 and 25) implies independent claims at approximately 1, 9, 13 and 25. I cannot verify that structure.

Two observations that matter for §103:

• Every limitation is functional and genus-level. There is no structural detail in 1(a)–(f): no defined switch type, no defined "state," no field-strength, frequency or protocol limitation. That breadth makes the claim read on ordinary NFC enable/disable gating, and correspondingly makes it easy to meet with art that merely enables or disables a short-range radio under some condition.
• The single potentially narrowing term is "electronic switch." The patentee's own intrinsic support is broad — the specification states the switch "is optical, thermal, magnetic, mechanical, wireless, and/or electronic" and may be "turned on or off by a circuit external to Switchable RFID Device" (col. 5:35–46, as quoted in the complaint analysis). Broad construction helps infringement but destroys any §103 argument that the claim is distinguished by a discrete hardware switch.

3. The prior art available for combination

P1 — US 2007/0257767 A1, "Wireless phone RF presentation instrument with sensor control" (First Data Corporation); granted counterpart appears to be US 7,966,263 B2. (Verified via FreePatentsOnline and the issued patent text.) This is the single most dangerous reference and is, functionally, the claimed invention:

• "A mobile communications device is described which includes an input sensor, a memory unit, processing unit, and an antenna configured to wirelessly transmit and receive financial account data for a transaction."
• "'mobile communications device' is intended to include any device, such as a cellular telephone, a personal digital assistant, a pager…"
• "the antenna is an inductively coupled transponder configured to induce a voltage from a magnetic field to power the presentation instrument, and the received first input determines whether the processing unit may be powered from the magnetic field."
• "the requested information is prevented from being transmitted unless a first input is substantially concurrent with the receipt of the request."
• "a processing unit … configured to control access to a secure storage region … based on an input received at the input sensor," with an unsecured region readable regardless — i.e., two distinct circuit states with different data-communication consequences.

Mapping to Claim 1: 1(a) ✓ (system), 1(b) ✓ (expressly cellular telephone), 1(c) ✓ (inductively coupled antenna/transponder), 1(d) ✓ (antenna "connected with the memory unit"/processing unit — part of a circuit), 1(e) ✓ on the broad construction (an electronically controlled gate — the input sensor + processing unit — that changes the device between a state in which the inductive transponder may be powered/transmit and a state in which it may not), 1(f) ✓ (transmission responsive to that state).

P2 — US 5,991,749, "Wireless telephony for collecting tolls, conducting financial transactions, and authorizing other activities." Cellular phone used as an "electronic wallet," with function-code and PIN entry, transaction-amount entry, and identity verification. Inductive coupling is absent; useful as a secondary reference for the cellular-telephone-plus-financial-transaction element and for the user-authentication-gates-the-transaction element.

P3 — "Transmitter for transmitting a secure access signal" family: US 2021/0256530 A1 / US 10,685,353 B2 (Australian priority AU 2007905760, 2007-10-22). Published claim 22 recites:

"A cellular telephone comprising: a display configured to display information concerning at least one financial account…; a transmitter subsystem comprising a biometric sensor configured to authenticate the user…; a proximity circuit including at least one coil, wherein said first proximity circuit is configured, upon authentication of the user by the biometric sensor, to generate a radio frequency field including encrypted information identifying the financial account…"

The published description also describes a card in which "the field emitted by the code entry module… will not charge the capacitor… as the switch has opened the circuit formed by the IC, coil and capacitor." That is a cellular-phone-plus-inductive-coupling-plus-electronic-switch disclosure with a biometric gate — i.e., it reaches not only '949 Claim 1 but the sibling '741/'612/'396 subject matter as well.

P4 — The applicant's own earlier family (Branch B only): US 7,719,425; US 7,924,156 ("Electronically switchable RFID tags" — a mechanical switch selecting among two or more "ON states," with transmit capability dependent on the selected state); US 8,816,826; US 9,569,777; US 11,170,185. These supply the entire switchable-tag architecture. In Branch B these are §102(a)(1) (or pre-AIA §102(b)) art and cannot be disqualified by common ownership.

P5 — RFID-shielding holder art cited in the specification itself: US 2004/0117514; US 2004/0237360; US 2004/0256469; US 2005/0011776; US 2002/0117243; US 4,744,497; US 5,700,037; US 2004/0089724; US 2004/0169087; US 2005/0205665. Relevant only to dependent claims that may recite cover/shield/clamshell structure.

P6 — General knowledge in the art (§103 may rest on it; KSR). The patent's own Background admits the RFID-skimming/identity-theft problem as known ("In view of the problem of identity theft, such shielding is desirable for credit cards with RFID tags…"). Short-range RFID/NFC in handsets was commercially demonstrated by 2007 (Nokia 6131 NFC / NXP), and mobile-wallet systems were in the field by 2011 (Google Wallet) — both well before the 2018/2021 filings of this family's later applications.

4. §103 grounds

Ground 1 — P1 alone (or P1 in view of P6)

Claim 1 obvious over US 2007/0257767 / US 7,966,263.

The only element P1 arguably does not state in haec verba is "electronic switch" as a discrete labeled component. But (i) on the patentee's own proffered broad construction the input-sensor-plus-processing-unit gate is an electronic switch; and (ii) if a stricter construction were pressed, it would be routine and well within the level of ordinary skill to implement the sensor-controlled enable/disable as a transistor switch in series with, or shunting, the antenna/rectifier path — precisely the topology the '949 specification itself describes ("Switch 2270 can be configured to turn off the function of Tag 2260 by short circuiting RFID Antenna 2240…"). Using a transistor to gate power or signal to an RF front end was among the most predictable engineering choices available. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

Ground 2 — P1 + P2

If it were argued that P1 does not clearly place the financial-account transaction within a cellular telephone's own architecture, P2 supplies it expressly (cellular phone as electronic wallet, PIN entry, transaction authorization). Both references are in the same field (wireless consumer payment), address the same problem (making a payment instrument convenient and secure), and their combination is a mere juxtaposition of known functions yielding predictable results. Motivation: P1's own stated purpose is to place an inductively coupled RF presentation instrument in a mobile communications device such as a cellular telephone; P2 shows that the cellular handset is a known payment platform. Nothing in P2 would disable P1's transponder.

Ground 3 — P1 + P3

P3 supplies, in a cellular telephone, (i) a coil-based proximity circuit, (ii) biometric authentication, and (iii) an electronic switch that opens the circuit to prevent powering/communication. Motivation: both references are directed to making a handset's short-range financial transaction conditional on user authentication; a POSITA seeking to reduce unauthorized reads (the exact problem the '949 Background admits) would look to P3's switch-out-the-coil approach, and would expect success because it is the same solution applied to the same type of circuit. This ground is the strongest if the '949 dependent claims recite biometric or authentication-linked switching.

Ground 4 — P1 + P4 (Branch B; and the self-collision theory)

Under Branch B, US 7,924,156 is a patent issued 2011-04-12 — more than a year before the 2021-11-09 filing — and is therefore §102(a)(1) (or pre-AIA §102(b)) prior art. The §102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception is unavailable because it applies only to §102(a)(2) art, and a granted patent more than a year old is §102(a)(1)/§102(b) art; the §102(b)(1)(A) grace period likewise does not reach a 2011 issuance. Consequently the applicant's own '156 patent — which discloses an RFID device whose transmit capability depends on a selected switch state — is available for §103 and is not merely cumulative. Combined with P1 (cellular telephone + inductive financial transponder + sensor control), the full claim is reached.

This is the ground that makes priority the decisive battleground, and it should be pleaded in the alternative alongside the §112 ¶1 priority challenge.

Ground 5 — P1 + P5

Any dependent claim reciting a cover, clamshell, fold, shielding or "shielded/unshielded" state is met by P5 (e.g., US 2004/0237360's pivoting case with one part carrying the card's tag and another the shield; US 2004/0117514's credit-card-and-case). Motivation is express in each reference — both are directed to preventing unwanted RF reads, the same purpose recited in the '949 specification.

Ground 6 — P6 (general knowledge) as the "states" limitation

Even accepting the patentee's framing, "change between states of the circuit" is met by any binary enable/disable of an NFC radio — airplane-mode behavior, an NFC on/off toggle, or an application-unlock gate. These were ubiquitous in the art years before the 2018/2021 filings. This is a §103 argument resting on the knowledge of a POSITA rather than a printed reference, and it is expressly permitted post-KSR.

5. Motivation to combine, articulated

For each ground, the KSR-compliant motivation story is:

1. Same field, same problem. Every reference addresses the known risk of unauthorized RF reading of a payment/identity instrument — a problem the '949 patent itself concedes at col. 1. A POSITA had explicit reason to look to each other.
2. Predictable result, no new function. The combination runs a known short-range inductively coupled transponder inside a device that already (a) computes, (b) stores credentials, and (c) has a user interface and a battery. Nothing in the claim requires an unexpected interaction or a new result.
3. Simple substitution / obvious use of a known technique. Moving an inductively-powered presentation instrument (P1) into a cellular handset (P2/P3) is substitution of one known environment for another, with the same expected outcome. KSR ("a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions").
4. Market/design pressure. Handset-based tap-to-pay was an active commercial target from the mid-2000s; the industry trajectory (NFC Forum standards 2004 onward; handset NFC demonstrations 2007; wallet platforms 2011) supplies a design incentive independent of the inventor.
5. No teaching away. Neither P1 nor P2 teaches away from combining inductive short-range communication with cellular telephony; P1 affirmatively contemplates the cellular telephone as the host device.

6. Dependent claims (provisional)

Without claim text I can only generalise. If the dependents track the specification, they likely recite: an NFC/RFID antenna as the inductive coupling; a memory storing account data; a mechanical, sliding, membrane or magnetic switch; multiple switches; a biometric sensor; and a cover/shield state. Each of these is disclosed in P4 (mechanical/membrane/sliding switches, multi-switch devices, ON/OFF states stored in state memory) and P5 (cover/shield), or in P3 (biometric sensor in a cellular telephone with a coil). They should fall with Claim 1.

7. Rebuttals and risks to the §103 theory

• "Electronic switch" construction cuts against the patentee, not for it. The specification's own enumeration ("optical, thermal, magnetic, mechanical, wireless, and/or electronic") forecloses a narrow reading; the broader the term, the more squarely P1 and P3 anticipate it.
• Branch A risk. If the patentee establishes 2005-05-06 entitlement, P1, P3 and P4 all drop out as prior art, and the §103 case becomes much weaker. The realistic path then is a §112 ¶1 priority/written-description attack on the cell-phone claims, which if successful resurrects the P1/P3/P4 grounds. Note also obviousness-type double patenting over the earlier family members (US 11,170,185; US 9,569,777; US 8,816,826; US 7,924,156) — technically a separate doctrine, but routinely pleaded with §103 and dependent on the same priority finding.
• Secondary considerations. None is apparent in the record I reviewed. The commercial success and consumer adoption in the pending E.D. Tex. case run to Samsung's accused products, not to products of the patentee — and NPE licensing activity is not a cognizable secondary consideration. Any nexus argument would have to link the specific claimed feature to a product the patentee made.
• Do not conflate. IPR2023-01089/01090 concern US 11,292,349 (WiTricity inductive charging) and have no bearing on US 11,347,949. My searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, reexam or Federal Circuit activity on the '949 patent; district-court activity is limited to Surecell Transactions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00106 (E.D. Tex.), which asserts the '949 patent with five siblings.

8. Bottom line

• If Branch B holds (no entitlement to the 2005-05-06 date for the cellular-telephone claims), Claim 1 is very likely obvious under §103. US 2007/0257767 A1 / US 7,966,263 B2 (First Data) alone discloses a cellular telephone communicating financial account data through an inductively coupled transponder with an electronically gated transmit state; adding US 5,991,749 (cellular telephony for financial transactions) or the "Transmitter for transmitting a secure access signal" family (cellular telephone + coil + biometric authentication + open-circuit switch) removes any residual doubt with a textbook KSR motivation (same field, same problem, predictable result). Independently, the applicant's own US 7,924,156 becomes §102(a)(1) art under Branch B and is not removed by common ownership.
• If Branch A holds, the §103 grounds above are unavailable, and the case shifts to priority/§112 ¶1 and obviousness-type double patenting.
• Confidence: high that P1 is the pivotal reference and that the priority determination controls the outcome; moderate on the exact claim language (paraphrased, not verbatim); low on the full cite list from the page's "References Cited" table, which was truncated out of the supplied record and which I could not reconstruct. To convert this into a filing-grade contention, I would need (i) the verbatim claims 1–30 from USPTO Patent Public Search or PatentCenter, (ii) the complete "References Cited" table from the US 11,347,949 front page, and (iii) the priority-support analysis of the 11/350,309, 11/382,0xx, 12/577,209, 14/660,825 and 16/186,543 specifications for the cellular-telephone embodiment.