US 12428878

US Patent 12,428,878 — "Security device"

Bibliographic data

Abstract

"A security device for securing an item of merchandise from theft is provided. The security device includes a housing configured to be coupled to the item of merchandise and a lock mechanism operably engaged with the housing. The lock mechanism is operable to lock the item of merchandise within or to the housing in a locked configuration and to allow the item of merchandise to be removed from the housing in an unlocked configuration. The lock mechanism is configured to communicate with an electronic key for locking and/or unlocking thereof."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

• Claim 1 (apparatus — bracket assembly + actuation mechanism): A security device with a bracket assembly having multiple arms that engage the merchandise, at least one arm moving between an engaged (secured) position and a disengaged position. A housing supports the bracket assembly and mounts to a display support. An actuation mechanism moves the arm between positions, is unlockable via an electronic key (moving the arm to disengaged so the item can be removed), and automatically deactuates when an arm engages the merchandise (i.e., it stops driving once the item is gripped).
• Claim 26 (apparatus — motor-based): Similar device but recites at least one motor as the actuation element. The motor is activated to move the arm(s) from engaged to disengaged (unlock via key/authorization), and is automatically deactivated in response to engagement of an arm with the item of merchandise (e.g., stall/current sensing to stop closing force once contact is made).
• Claim 27 (method): A method of securing merchandise that (1) actuates at least one arm from disengaged to engaged so the item cannot be removed; (2) automatically deactuates the arm(s) upon engagement with the item; and (3) actuates the arm(s) back to disengaged in response to communication with an electronic key so the item can be removed.

The dependent claims cover details such as simultaneous arm movement, motor-current-based activation/deactivation, proximity/light sensors, multiple motors (X- and Y-direction actuation), clockwise/counterclockwise motor rotation, a fixed arm carrying a connector for power/data to the merchandise, a removable connector plug (e.g., USB-C) with electrical contacts that trigger automatic actuation, orientation sensors (accelerometer), wireless communications circuitry (e.g., NFC/Bluetooth) in an arm, the electronic key being a mobile device, and gear-driven motor actuation.

Litigation / docket status (from live search)

• No CAFC appeal docket referencing patent 12,428,878 was found in searches of Federal Circuit 2026 dockets.
• District court action found: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc., Florida Middle District Court, Case No. 8:26-cv-02536 (PacerMonitor docket). A patent-infringement complaint under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Nature of Suit 830, jury demand) was filed by InVue asserting US Patent No. 12,428,878 (and US Patent No. 12,460,451), with exhibits including a claim chart for the '878 patent. The docket reflects a filing/update date of 08/28/2026.

Uncertainty notes

• The user-stated current date (April 26, 2026) conflicts with the live docket and Google Patents fetch dates (Aug. 28–31, 2026). Per the operating rule, I treated the search results as ground truth for the litigation finding, but flag that the case-filing date of 08/28/2026 post-dates the stated "current date."
• I did not verify the USPTO Patent Center record directly (only Google Patents, PatentLeaderboard, and PacerMonitor-derived results); the filing/issue dates and assignee are consistent across those sources.
• No PTAB/IPR proceeding for this patent was identified in the searches performed.

Based on live searches of PacerMonitor, Ex Parte, and related litigation databases, here is the known litigation involving US Patent No. 12,428,878 ("Security device," InVue Security Products Inc.):

Known litigation

1. InVue Security Products Inc. v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc.

Source: PacerMonitor public docket — InVue Security Products Inc. v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc., 8:26-cv-02536 (M.D. Fla.), https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66517577/InVue_Security_Products_Inc_v_Vanguard_Products_Group,_Inc; corroborated by Ex Parte case index (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/flmd/8:26-cv-02536/invue-security-products-inc-v-vanguard-products-group-inc), which lists the case as "Open," patent owner as "Operating Company," and pending judge assignment.

Searches that returned no additional litigation

• No CAFC appeal docket referencing the '878 patent was found.
• No ITC (Section 337) proceeding involving the '878 patent was found.
• No PTAB/IPR/PGR proceeding (petition or instituted) for the '878 patent was identified.
• No other district court cases naming US 12,428,878 were located; the only case returned across all searches was the Florida Middle District action above.

Date discrepancy flag (per operating rules)

The user-specified current date is April 26, 2026, but the live search results (PacerMonitor docket timestamps and Ex Parte index) place the complaint filing on August 28, 2026 — i.e., four months after the stated "current date." Consistent with the instruction to treat live search results as ground truth, I am reporting the case as filed on 08/28/2026; the filing date cannot be reconciled with the stated current date, and that conflict is flagged for your awareness.

Bottom line: As of the latest available docket information, there is one known litigation involving US Patent 12,428,878 — InVue Security Products Inc. v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc. (M.D. Fla., 8:26-cv-02536, filed 08/28/2026), which remains open with no substantive rulings on the docket. No other district court, appellate, ITC, or PTAB proceedings were found.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 12,428,878: zero. There are no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings on file at the USPTO Open Data Portal, and live searches confirm none have been filed as of 2026-08-31. The breakdown is trivially: 0 active / 0 with claims invalidated / 0 with claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied. The bottom line for a defendant: the '878 patent has never been tested at the PTAB — all 27 claims are untested and fully in force, but the patent is young (issued 2025-09-30), the first infringement complaint was only just served (M.D. Fla., 2026-08-28), and the one-year § 315(b) window to petition for IPR is still open.

There are therefore no proceedings to report in the per-proceeding format below. What follows is the verified absence finding, the related-activity context that a defendant should know about, and the strategic read.

No proceedings — verified absence

PTAB docket for US 12,428,878 — status: clear

• Structured data (USPTO ODP ingest): "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest."
• Web search corroboration (2026-08-31): Searches for "12,428,878" / "12428878" combined with inter partes review, PTAB, IPR, and PGR return no USPTO PTAB proceeding. The only case documents referencing the '878 patent are the district-court filings in InVue Security Products Inc. v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc., 8:26-cv-02536 (M.D. Fla.), docketed 2026-08-28 — the complaint, AO 120 notice, and the plaintiff's own claim chart (Ex. 5). No PTAB petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or settlement involving this patent exists.

Why this absence is expected (not a red flag):

• The patent issued 2025-09-30; the first complaint asserting it was filed 2026-08-28 (PacerMonitor docket, 8:26-cv-02536, updated 2026-08-28 11:59 PM EDT).
• Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), an IPR petition must be filed within one year of service of a complaint — that deadline lands around 2027-08-28 and has not yet run. Any IPR against this patent would be filed by then at the earliest, and as of the current date none has been.
• No IPR petition can predate the complaint against a real-world petitioner absent a different triggering event; with no prior assertion identified, the PTAB docket being empty is the normal state for a nine-month-old patent.

Related PTAB history that does NOT involve this patent (do not conflate): Vanguard Products Group has a documented history of challenging other InVue patents at the PTAB — e.g., IPR2020-00014 (US 10,008,082), IPR2020-00032 (US 9,972,178), IPR2020-00048 (US 9,747,765), IPR2020-00066 (US 9,805,564), IPR2020-00069 (US 10,043,358), all filed October 2019, several of which settled 2020-07-08 (Unified Patents PTAB case list; DocketAlarm). Those involve entirely different InVue patents and are not proceedings on the '878 patent. They are, however, a pattern signal (see below).

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 27 claims of US 12,428,878 — independent claims 1, 26, 27 and dependent claims 2–25 — are untested at the PTAB. None has been canceled, amended, or even challenged in an AIA trial. The patent is being asserted in full by InVue in InVue Security Products Inc. v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc. (M.D. Fla., 8:26-cv-02536), with a dedicated claim chart for the '878 patent attached to the complaint. For a defendant, this means there is no PTAB-generated invalidity to lean on: any invalidity defense must be built from scratch in the district court or through a new petition.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR has been filed or instituted on this patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel binds no one with respect to the '878 patent — no petitioner or privy is barred from raising any ground. The practical corollary: all prior-art grounds remain available, and a would-be petitioner (notably Vanguard, the named defendant) is still inside the § 315(b) one-year window from service of the 2026-08-28 complaint. Two tactical realities to weigh:

• The PTAB post-Fintiv discretion and the USPTO's current "narrowing path for IPR estoppel" environment (Sterne Kessler, "Navigating the New PTAB Playing Field," Session 9) mean district-court timing and the Fintiv factors will matter if a petition is filed.
• If the district court case proceeds on a parallel track, any IPR petition should be filed promptly to maximize the chance of a stay and to lock in the estoppel posture on its own grounds.

Pattern signals. The parties have been here before: Vanguard has repeatedly petitioned for IPR against InVue patents (the October 2019 cluster of IPRs listed above), and at least several of those proceedings terminated by settlement on the same day (2020-07-08), consistent with the parties' prior global resolution in the 2018–2019 M.D. Fla. litigation (InVue v. Vanguard, 8:18-cv-02548, where Vanguard conceded validity/infringement of six of eight patents and challenged two). That history cuts both ways for a defendant today: (1) Vanguard is a sophisticated, repeat challenger that knows how to run IPRs against InVue, and (2) InVue has shown willingness to resolve via settlement rather than litigate to a FWD. There is no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain for this patent — the only entity of record is InVue/Assa Abloy. Expect that if Vanguard petitions, InVue will contest institution vigorously and may seek early resolution.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the record yourself before relying on it. Pull the PTAB E2E docket for the '878 patent (search by patent number in USPTO PTAB End-to-End) and the PacerMonitor/CM/ECF docket for 8:26-cv-02536. The "no PTAB activity" finding is current as of 2026-08-31 but is a moving target — the § 315(b) clock runs from service of the complaint, so re-check the PTAB docket monthly through 2027-08-28.

2. If you are the defendant (Vanguard or a privy): the IPR door is open but closing. A petition must be filed on or before 2027-08-28 (one year from service). If you intend to challenge validity, identify your best § 102/§ 103 combinations against independent claims 1 and 26 now — the motor-driven, auto-deactuating locking-arm feature set (claims 1, 26, and dependent claims 3–5, 8–10, 22–23, 25) is the core to attack. Note that claim 27 (method) tracks claims 1/26 and will fall with them if the apparatus claims fall. If the case is filed in the M.D. Fla. (Tampa) division, expect Fintiv scrutiny if you petition after significant district-court progress.

3. If you are a third party being asserted against: you are not estopped by anything Vanguard does or fails to do (no IPR has run), but be alert to the parties' settlement history — a Vanguard–InVue settlement could end the test case and leave the '878 patent untested for the next defendant, so your own petition rights (or a joinder strategy under § 315(c)) are your only independent leverage.

4. If the goal is defense against the current complaint: the PTAB docket being empty does not help you directly — it simply means the validity fight, if any, starts fresh. The most efficient near-term moves are (a) scrutinize the plaintiff's Exhibit 5 claim chart for claim 1/26/27 element-by-element gaps, and (b) monitor for a Vanguard IPR petition (filing would likely trigger a stay motion on the Patent Asset Licensing factors, as Vanguard itself argued in the 2018 case). Until a petition appears, there is no PTAB milestone calendar (no institution-decision deadline, no oral-hearing date, no statutory one-year FWD date) because no proceeding exists.

Bottom line: No AIA trial proceeding has ever been filed against US 12,428,878. All 27 claims stand untested; the patent owner's position is entirely intact at the PTAB, and the first assertion is just weeks old. The absence of PTAB activity is a function of the patent's age and the litigation timeline — not a signal of weakness or strength — and the window for the first IPR (against Vanguard) remains open until 2027-08-28.

I'll reconstruct the assignment chain for US 12,428,878 by checking the USPTO assignment records and cross-referencing the legal events already visible on Google Patents.

The Google Patents legal-event data shows a single recorded assignment (inventors → InVue). Let me verify the reel/frame details and check for any post-issuance transfers (e.g., to the Assa Abloy parent).

Let me dig deeper on the assignment record specifics and the InVue/Assa Abloy ownership structure.

I have reached the search-step limit. Based on the available evidence — the Google Patents legal-event record for US 12,428,878, the live litigation docket (already documented in the prior sections), and public reporting on InVue's ownership — here is the assignment-chain reconstruction. One caveat up front: I could not pull the USPTO Assignment Center reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record fields directly in this environment, so I am reporting only what is verifiable and flagging the unverifiable fields rather than guessing.

Inventors

All seven named inventors assigned their rights to InVue Security Products Inc., the Charlotte, NC-based company whose name appears on the issued patent. All are consistent with in-house InVue engineering personnel (the same inventor cohort appears across InVue's other filings in this family, e.g., the continuation US 19/338,093):

1. David N. Berglund — InVue (assignor to InVue)
2. Gary A. Taylor — InVue
3. Wesley J. Blanchard — InVue
4. Christopher Helman — InVue
5. Daniel C. Symons — InVue
6. John DeFilippi — InVue
7. Jason Amistadi — InVue

Pattern check: No unusual pattern. There is no evidence of mass inventor departure or a post-filing portfolio fire-sale; on the contrary, InVue's management (e.g., CEO David Glenn) remained in place through the January 2025 ASSA ABLOY acquisition and the product line continues to be operated commercially.

Original assignee

InVue Security Products Inc. (Charlotte, NC) — the entity named on the issued patent and the current assignee of record.

• Line of business: Operating manufacturer of retail merchandise-security products — connected asset-protection devices, merchandise display security (cradles, sensors, locks, tethers), and access-control solutions for retailers. The '878 patent's claims (motor-driven locking arms on a display housing, auto-deactuating on contact with the merchandise) map directly onto InVue's commercial product category of display-security devices for smartphones/tablets and wearables.
• Products embodying the claims: Yes — InVue sells merchandise display security systems in this exact category (the patent family includes the wearable-device and handheld-device cradles shown in FIGS. 1–26, and InVue markets such devices under its retail security line). This is consistent with the litigation, where InVue asserts the patent against a direct competitor.
• Current status: Operating. Acquired by ASSA ABLOY (announced January 24, 2025, completed early 2025; press release via ASSA ABLOY/Cision and InVue resource center; ~260 employees, ~USD 165M 2024 sales). InVue now operates within ASSA ABLOY Global Solutions (Global Technologies/Retail business unit). No bankruptcy, no dissolution.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center / Google Patents legal events show exactly one recorded assignment for this patent — the standard inventor-to-employer assignment made before issuance. No post-issuance assignment, security agreement, merger, license, or release is recorded. In particular, there is no recorded transfer to any ASSA ABLOY entity; InVue Security Products Inc. remains the assignee of record (the acquisition was a stock deal, so the entity was preserved).

• ~2025-03 / recorded 2025-04-01 — Reel/Frame: not retrievable in this environment (see note)
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: David N. Berglund, Jason Amistadi, Wesley J. Blanchard, John DeFilippi, Christopher Helman, Daniel C. Symons, Gary A. Taylor (all seven inventors)
  • Assignee: INVUE SECURITY PRODUCTS INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources — do not rely on this field as populated
  • Context: Standard employee-inventor assignment into the employing operating company, recorded roughly two weeks after the March 19, 2025 filing and five months before the September 30, 2025 issue date.

Note on the record: Google Patents lists this single event (dated 2025-04-01) with the exact assignor/assignee names above. The reel/frame and correspondent fields are published in the USPTO Assignment Center but were not accessible through the search tools available for this task; they should be verified at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ before relying on them. The substantive finding — one pre-issuance assignment, no post-issuance chain — is well-supported by the Google Patents legal-event list (which shows no further assignment events through the 2026-08-31 fetch) and by the litigation record (InVue suing in its own name).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12428878
    2024 : InVue files provisional application
    2025 : US application filed March 19
    2025 : Assigned to InVue Security Products
    2025 : Patent issued September 30
    2026 : InVue sues Vanguard in Florida

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The recorded chain is a single, ordinary inventor-to-employer assignment into InVue Security Products Inc. (recorded 2025-04-01), a manufacturer that ships retail merchandise-security devices embodying the claims and that was acquired by ASSA ABLOY in a stock deal (announced 2025-01-24) without any recorded transfer of the patent. InVue is asserting the '878 patent in its own name against Vanguard Products Group, Inc. — a direct competitor in the anti-theft display-device market (see Vanguard's own adjustable-locking-arms patents cited in the file, e.g., US 11,952,803 B1 and US 2025/0067090 A1) — in InVue Security Products Inc. v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc., No. 8:26-cv-02536 (M.D. Fla., filed 2026-08-28). None of the eight NPE signals is present; this is a classic competitor-vs-competitor assertion by a product company.

Verify the reel/frame and correspondent of the single recorded assignment directly at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 12428878).