US 12460451

Summary of US Patent 12460451

Bibliographic Data (confirmed via Google Patents and secondary sources)

The patent is a continuation in a long chain (US 14/300,476 → 9,567,776 → 15/392,598 → 9,970,217 → 15/977,401 → 10,227,796 → 16/278,295 → 10,738,508 → 16/932,055 → 11,293,202 → 17/712,702 → 11,753,852 → 18/230,427 → 12,264,510 → this patent).

Abstract (as published)

An anti-theft device for protecting a portable electronic device from theft or unauthorized removal in a retail environment is provided. A shroud may at least partially enclose a portable electronic device. A dock may releasably engage the shroud such that the shroud and portable electronic device are locked to the dock when engaged with the dock. A key may engage activate a lock mechanism to release the shroud and the portable electronic device from the dock.

Plain-Language Overview of the Invention

The patent covers several related anti-theft architectures for tablets and other portable electronics used in retail, hospitality, and hospital settings:

1. Sensor-based device protection – A sensor coupled to (or integrated with) the portable device generates a security signal both (a) when it is removed/separated from the device, and (b) when the device moves outside an authorized location, perimeter, or beyond a paired key.
2. Shroud + sensor – A shroud at least partially encloses the device; a sensor engaged with the shroud alarms if the sensor is removed from the shroud, the shroud is removed from the device, or the device leaves an authorized zone.
3. Shroud + dock with locking fingers – A dock releasably engages the shroud; spring-biased fingers extend into a groove in the shroud's handle to lock the device to the dock, with mechanical or electronic key release, plus contact/power-transfer cabling routed inside the shroud.
4. Handle + adjustable arms – A handle with multiple adjustable arms grips the device; the handle locks to a dock, and the device can be lifted off the dock while the arms stay engaged with it.
5. Methods – Corresponding methods for arming sensors, defining authorized perimeters, detecting light-level changes during movement, monitoring key-pair distance, generating/wirelessly communicating security signals, and locking/unlocking a shroud from a dock.

Independent Claims – Plain-Language Overview

Important caveat: The claims section (the numbered claims) was not included in the patent text provided to me, and my live searches did not return the verbatim claims. The following overview is therefore reconstructed from the specification's "Summary of the Invention," which ordinarily mirrors the independent claims. Treat the exact claim scope as unverified.

• Claim 1 (device + sensor): An anti-theft device having a sensor coupled to a portable electronic device; the sensor is configured to alarm if (i) it is removed from the device and (ii) the device is displaced relative to an authorized device, location, or perimeter.
• Claim (shroud + sensor): A shroud at least partially enclosing the device, with a sensor engaged to the shroud that alarms upon removal of the sensor/shroud and upon location-based security events; optionally including a paired key and a port for receiving a wireless signal from the key.
• Claim (shroud + dock): A shroud and a dock that releasably locks to the shroud; the dock has at least one extendable/retractable finger engaging a groove in the shroud's handle, with options for mechanical or electronic key release, charging contacts, a flexible cable inside the shroud, and 360° rotation of the shroud relative to the dock.
• Claim (handle + arms + dock): A handle and multiple arms that releasably engage the portable electronic device, plus a dock that locks to the handle via at least one finger; the device can be disengaged from the dock while the arms remain on the device.
• Method claims: (i) coupling a sensor to a device and arming it for removal- and location-based alarms; (ii) detecting a device/sensor location and generating a security signal based on location relative to an authorized device/location/perimeter; (iii) coupling a shroud to a device and releasably locking the shroud to a dock using fingers, and optionally arming the dock for an audible/visible alarm upon unauthorized separation.

CAFC 2026 Docket Search

I searched for CAFC 2026 appeal dockets involving patent 12460451 / InVue and found no results. This is not affirmative proof of absence — my searches returned empty result sets (and one query hit a step limit), and public CAFC docket databases may not be fully indexed by the search tool. If you need confirmation, the authoritative check would be PACER/CM/ECF for the Federal Circuit or the USPTO Patent Center assignment/status records.

Sources

• Google Patents record for US12460451B2 (fetched 2026-08-31), including full specification and family data.
• PatentLeaderBoard listings for Christopher J. Fawcett and Matthew Thomas Kerley confirming patent number, title, inventors, assignee, and issue date (2025-11-04).
• Justia/company profile pages for InVue Security Products Inc. confirming assignee and related abstract language.

Confidence note: Bibliographic data and abstract are high-confidence (multiple corroborating sources). Claim-by-claim overview is medium-confidence only, because the verbatim claims text was unavailable in the materials I had; the overview is drawn from the specification's summary and may not exactly track the granted claim language.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 12460451 across the sources you specified.

Initial searches returned no results. Let me try additional variations.

I've reached the search step limit, so I'll compile the findings from the results I obtained. One search hit is directly on point, so here is the litigation status.

Known litigation involving US patent 12460451

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

• Case number: 8:26-cv-02536
• Court / jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa Division, based on the 8:26 prefix)
• Plaintiff: InVue Security Products Inc. (the named assignee of US 12460451)
• Defendant: Vanguard Products Group, Inc.
• Cause of action: Patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271 style cause; the docket cause field is listed as "35:"), with jury demand
• Filing date: The PACER Monitor docket entry shows the complaint was filed 08/28/2026 (receipt number AFLMDC-25478917; counsel of record: James Matulis)
• Patents-in-suit evidence: The complaint's Exhibit 1 is "US Patent No. 12,460,451" and Exhibit 6 is a "Claim Chart '451 Patent", confirming that US 12460451 is asserted in this case
• Outcome / current status: No merits ruling, judgment, or settlement was shown in the search results. Given the complaint is the most recent docket entry captured, the case appears to be pending (early stage) as of the latest available data.

Important caveats

1. Date discrepancy: The user message states today's date as April 26, 2026, but the docket entry shows the complaint was filed August 28, 2026 — a date after the stated "current date." Per my operating rules, I treat the live search result as ground truth. The case number's "26" year designation and the docket date both indicate a 2026 filing, so the August 28, 2026 filing date is likely accurate and the "April 26, 2026" date in the task prompt appears to be in error (the system-level date in my environment is 2026-08-31, which is consistent with the August filing).
2. Sources that returned nothing: Searches of the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com), CAFC-related queries, and generic queries for "12460451 patent litigation" returned empty result sets. This means I could not independently verify whether additional cases exist that name the '451 patent, and I could not confirm the Vanguard case through Unified Patents or PACER directly (the hit came via PACER Monitor's public case page).
3. No CAFC appeal found: A prior CAFC docket search (from the earlier analysis) found no Federal Circuit appeal involving patent 12460451.

Bottom line

• One known district-court case: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc., No. 8:26-cv-02536 (M.D. Fla.), filed 2026-08-28, asserting US 12460451, currently pending with no disposition shown.
• If you need a definitive, complete litigation history, the authoritative checks would be PACER/CM-ECF for the Middle District of Florida (case 8:26-cv-02536) and the USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records for any recorded litigations or terminal disclaimers. My search tool did not return any other cases, but an exhaustive PACER search could reveal more than what the public web snippets showed.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US Patent 12460451. The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal record shows no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving this patent, and my web searches surfaced no PTAB petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision naming US12460451B2 or any of its direct ancestors (US 9,567,776 / 9,970,217 / 10,227,796 / 10,738,508 / 11,293,202 / 11,753,852 / 12,264,510). Bottom line for a defendant: this patent is completely untested at the PTAB — no claim has been canceled or sustained in an AIA trial, so there is no existing PTAB record to leverage against it, and the validity fight would have to be built from scratch. The absence is not surprising: the patent only issued on 2025-11-04, and a PGR window (9 months from grant, assuming post-AIA effective filing dates) closed on 2026-08-04, just before today's date.

Proceedings on US 12460451

There are no proceedings to report. I will not fabricate proceeding numbers or outcomes. The searches I ran did surface a large body of PTAB activity against other InVue Security Products patents — but none of those proceedings involve US12460451 or its continuation lineage, and they are discussed below only as context, clearly labeled as not this patent.

Adjacent PTAB activity on other InVue patents (context only — NOT US 12460451)

These are the closest data points a defendant should know about, but they are not proceedings on the patent at issue:

I could not determine from the available search results whether IPR2026-00445 (Apple, filed 2026-08-25) challenges US 12460451 or an unrelated patent — the caption does not yet reveal the patent number. This is the single most important item to check immediately in PTAB E2E.

Strategic summary

Claims status for US 12460451: all claims UNTESTED. No claim has been canceled, narrowed, or sustained in an AIA trial, because no petition has been filed. The claims are therefore entitled to the full statutory presumption of validity, and a defendant cannot point to any PTAB disposition as a ready-made invalidity defense.

Estoppel landscape: wide open. Because no petitioner has ever challenged this patent, no party is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) as to this patent. All § 102 / § 103 / § 112 grounds remain available to a new petitioner. Two practical constraints, though: (1) the PGR window closed on 2026-08-04 (9 months from the 2025-11-04 grant), so only IPR (and only on § 102/§ 103 over patents or printed publications) is now available; and (2) the one-year bar of § 315(b) applies if a complaint asserting this patent was served more than a year before any petition is filed — check the service date of any demand/complaint immediately.

Pattern signals — this is where the story gets interesting. Although 12460451 itself is untested, InVue's retail anti-theft portfolio has been repeatedly and successfully attacked by Mobile Tech, Inc., which invalidated all challenged claims in three separate InVue patents (8,884,762: claims 1–27; 9,396,631: claims 1–29; 9,478,110: all claims), with the Board relying on references — Belden (US 2007/0159328), Rothbaum (US 5,543,782), Denison (US 2004/0201449), Ott (US 6,380,855), and notably Sedon (US 2005/0073413) — that are squarely in the same anti-theft-for-electronics art space as 12460451. Notably, Nicholas M. Sedon is both an inventor on US 12460451 and the named inventor of the Sedon reference the Board used to invalidate InVue's '762 patent. Vanguard Products Group has also filed multiple IPRs against InVue (IPR2020-00066 settled; IPR2019-01209 denied). There is no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain identified by my searches. This pattern cuts both ways: it signals that InVue's security-device claims are attackable with the same art set, but it also means InVue has deep PTAB experience defending — and survived institution denials in some cases (e.g., the Vanguard optical-patent IPRs, which were denied institution and then used in the M.D. Fla. litigation, 8:18-cv-2548, to estop Vanguard under a settlement stipulation).

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the zero-proceedings conclusion authoritatively. Search PTAB E2E / USPTO Patent Center / the ODP API for "12460451" and each family member (9,567,776; 9,970,217; 10,227,796; 10,738,508; 11,293,202; 11,753,852; 12,264,510). My web searches returned no petition against any of them, but I hit tool step limits and could not exhaustively crawl the PTAB docket; the ODP "no proceedings" record is the canonical source.

2. Check IPR2026-00445 immediately. An Apple IPR filed 2026-08-25 with an unidentified challenged patent is the only pending PTAB filing with timing consistent with a challenge to this newly issued patent. Confirm the patent number in the petition (USPTO PTAB E2E) before assuming it is unrelated.

3. Run the § 315(b) clock. If you have been served with a complaint or received a detailed demand letter naming US 12460451, note the service date. An IPR must be filed within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement — if that date is near, act now. If no complaint has been served, there is no bar.

4. If you choose to petition: PGR is no longer available (window closed 2026-08-04). Build an IPR on § 102/§ 103 grounds using the art that worked against InVue's sibling patents — Belden, Rothbaum, Denison, Ott, Sedon — but expect InVue to defend aggressively; it has litigated these exact issues before the Board multiple times (e.g., IPR2016-00892, IPR2017-00344/-00345, IPR2017-01900) and has won institution denials against Vanguard.

5. Monitor the district-court ecosystem. InVue's parallel litigation against Mobile Tech (W.D.N.C. 3:15-cv-00610) and Vanguard (M.D. Fla. 8:18-cv-2548) shows this portfolio is actively enforced; watch for any new complaint that asserts US 12460451 specifically — that will be the trigger event for IPR timing and for identifying the real target claims.

Confidence note: The zero-proceedings finding rests on the canonical ODP data in the prompt plus web searches that surfaced extensive related InVue PTAB activity but none against US 12460451 or its direct ancestors. I did not locate the verbatim granted claims of 12460451, so I cannot map which specific claims would be most exposed to the Belden/Rothbaum/Denison art — that mapping is the logical next work product once the claims and the IPR2026-00445 petition are in hand.

Inventors

All five named inventors are employees of InVue Security Products Inc., the original applicant/assignee, at the time the underlying application (US 14/300,476, filed June 10, 2014) was filed:

Unusual pattern check: No departures or portfolio fire-sale pattern. Grant and Fawcett remain active InVue inventors well after the 2014 filing (patents issued to InVue through 2024–2025 list them), so there is no "all inventors departed within 12 months" red flag.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: InVue Security Products Inc. (both "Current Assignee" and "Original Assignee" per Google Patents record).
• Products embodying the claims: Yes. InVue is a manufacturer of retail merchandise-security hardware; the claimed shroud/dock/finger-lock/arm architectures for tablets correspond to InVue's commercial tablet-security product line (security shrouds, docks, and electronic keys).
• Line of business: Retail security products — EAS tags, display locks, cables, sensors, programmable electronic keys, and tablet/portable-device anti-theft systems.
• Current status: Operating. As of the 2026 litigation docket, InVue identifies its corporate parent as Assa Abloy Global Solutions, Inc. (Disclosure Statement, InVue Security Products Inc. v. Vanguard Products Group, Inc., No. 8:26-cv-02536, M.D. Fla.). No bankruptcy or dissolution found.

Assignment timeline

Data limitation stated plainly: I could not directly query the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) through my available tools, and no recorded assignment entries — no reel/frame numbers, conveyance types, or correspondents — surfaced in any of my searches for US12460451. I therefore cannot confirm or deny the existence of a recorded inventors→InVue assignment on the original 2014 application or any post-issuance transfer, and I will not fabricate reel/frame entries.

What the available record does show:

• 2014-06-10 — Original application US 14/300,476 filed by InVue Security Products Inc. (chain ancestor). An assignment of the inventors' interest to InVue would normally have been recorded at or near this filing, but I have no reel/frame verification of it.
• 2025-11-04 — US12460451B2 issued, with InVue Security Products Inc. as the named assignee.
• 2026 (case filed ~Aug 28, 2026) — InVue Security Products Inc. sued Vanguard Products Group, Inc. in the Middle District of Florida (No. 8:26-cv-02536) asserting US Patent No. 12,460,451 (Exhibit 2 to the Complaint), among others, in InVue's own name — indicating no transfer of the patent out of InVue as of filing.

Conclusion for this section: If the USPTO Assignment Center has no post-issuance records for this patent, that is itself a meaningful finding — it means the original assignee (InVue) still owns it, which is consistent with InVue's 2026 assertion in its own name. For definitive confirmation of whether any assignment (including the original 2014 inventors' assignment) is on record, the authoritative check is a direct search of https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by patent number 12460451, which I could not execute here.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12460451
    2013 : Priority provisional filed
    2014 : Application filed by InVue
    2025 : Patent issued to InVue
    2026 : InVue sues Vanguard in Florida

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No evidence of any transfer from InVue to an "IP / Licensing / Holdings" LLC, a registered-agent address, or a single-purpose entity. The patent issued to, and remains with, the operating company InVue (confirmed by InVue's 2026 suit in its own name, No. 8:26-cv-02536).

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. InVue Security Products Inc. is not on any public NPE list I can identify. To the contrary, in the prior PTAB proceeding Vanguard Products Group Inc v. InVue Security Products Inc. (IPR2020-00032, on a different InVue patent, US 9,972,178), Unified Patents classified InVue as an "Operating Company" patent owner. InVue's assertion posture is as a manufacturer suing a competitor, not as a licensing NPE.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not assessable. No recorded assignments or correspondents-of-record were retrievable, so no repeat-attorney analysis is possible. No finding either way.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. No chain of consecutive LLC transfers was found; no assignments at all were surfaced.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The 2026 suit was filed by the original assignee itself; there is no assignment dated within six months before suit, because none is on record.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. InVue is an operating company (now under Assa Abloy Global Solutions, Inc. per the 2026 Disclosure Statement); no Chapter 7/11 proceeding or distressed patent sale found.

7. Privateering — Not present. The operating company is asserting directly against a competitor rather than funneling the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at InVue, an operating company.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The patent issued to and remains with InVue Security Products Inc., a manufacturer of retail/tablet security products (corporate parent Assa Abloy Global Solutions, Inc. per the 2026 Disclosure Statement in No. 8:26-cv-02536). In 2026 InVue sued competitor Vanguard Products Group in the Middle District of Florida asserting this exact patent (US 12,460,451) alongside US 12,428,878, in InVue's own name. No recorded assignments, shell-entity transfers, or NPE involvement were found — every available indicator points to a standard operating-company assertion against a competitor, not a troll pattern.

Verification links:

• USPTO Patent Assignment Search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent no. 12460451 for the definitive reel/frame record; I could not execute this query directly)
• InVue v. Vanguard docket (M.D. Fla. 8:26-cv-02536, asserting US 12,460,451): https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66517577/InVue_Security_Products_Inc_v_Vanguard_Products_Group,_Inc
• IPR2020-00032 (Unified Patents classification of InVue as operating company): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2020-00032

Confidence note: The operating-company classification is high-confidence (litigation docket + assignee records + Unified Patents classification). The absence of recorded assignments is provisional — it reflects that no assignments surfaced in my search tooling, not a verified empty result from the USPTO Assignment Center; a direct Assignment Center query remains the authoritative confirmation step.

The direct citation list isn't surfacing yet. Let me try to access the Google Patents page and look for the "Patent Citations" section and the examiner-cited references.

I've hit the search step limit, so I'll compile the prior-art analysis from the results actually retrieved, being explicit about what is verified versus what remains unconfirmed. One important procedural note first: the search tool did not return the actual "References Cited" section of the USPTO record for US12460451B2. What I did retrieve were (a) the two references expressly incorporated by reference in the '451 specification, and (b) related-document/citation lists from adjacent Google Patents pages that include documents relevant to this family. I'll flag confidence levels per reference.

Prior Art Analysis for US Patent 12460451

A. Methodological caveats (read first)

1. Claims text not available verbatim. As documented in the earlier patent summary, the numbered claims of US12460451B2 were not in the source text provided, and my searches did not return them. Claim mapping below uses the claims as reconstructed from the specification's "Summary of the Invention." Treat claim-by-claim mapping as medium-confidence.
2. § 102 framework. The '451 patent claims priority to June 11, 2013 (provisional 61/833,655) and its first non-provisional (14/300,476) was filed June 10, 2014 — after the March 16, 2013 AIA transition date. AIA applies. Relevant sections: § 102(a)(1) (public disclosure before the effective filing date) and § 102(a)(2) (U.S. patent or published application with an effective filing date before the effective filing date of the claimed invention). Anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element. Where a reference discloses only part of the claimed combination, it is at most a § 103 obviousness candidate, not an anticipatory reference — I'll say so explicitly.
3. What "potential anticipation" means here. For each reference below I identify the claim(s) whose elements the reference most closely overlaps, and note the elements that would need to be found in the single reference for § 102 to lie.

B. Verified prior art — references expressly incorporated by reference in the specification of US12460451B2

The '451 specification itself names two documents (both cited in the Detailed Description for the electronic-key and location-based features):

1. US 7,737,845 B2 — "Programmable Key for a Security System for Protecting Merchandise"

• Assignee: InVue Security Products Inc.
• Filing / publication: Filed 2006-06-08 (per family data); issued June 15, 2010
• Full citation: U.S. Patent No. 7,737,845 B2, InVue Security Products Inc.
• Description: Discloses a programmable electronic key for arming/disarming merchandise security devices. The key stores a security code, wirelessly (IR, inductive, or contact) communicates the code to a security device, and operates the device's lock only upon code match. Includes a timer that inactivates the key/device after a set period. This is the exact technology the '451 specification references for its "electronic key 25A" embodiment (arming/disarming, timeout, wireless code communication).
• § 102 analysis: Because it issued June 15, 2010 — before the June 11, 2013 effective filing date — it is prior art under AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2). It is highly relevant to the key-related features of the sensor claims and the shroud+sensor claims (e.g., a key paired with the device/sensor, wireless communication between key and device, timeout/re-authentication). However, it does not disclose a shroud, a dock with locking fingers, or location/perimeter-based alarming, so it cannot alone anticipate Claim 1 (sensor removed + location-based alarm) or the shroud+dock claims. It is a strong § 103 primary reference for the key elements, not a full § 102 anticipatory reference.

2. US 2012/0293330 A1 — "Systems and Methods for Protecting Retail Display Merchandise From Theft"

• Assignee: InVue Security Products Inc.
• Filing / publication: Filed May 18, 2012; published November 22, 2012
• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0293330 A1
• Description: Discloses a security system with a sensor secured to an item of merchandise and a monitoring component in wireless communication with the sensor; the two communicate to determine proximity, and a security signal is initiated when the proximity is within (or beyond) a predetermined range/distance. The '451 specification cites this reference for its location/proximity-based security techniques.
• § 102 analysis: Published November 22, 2012 — before June 11, 2013 — so it is § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) prior art. It is the closest single reference to Claim 1 (sensor coupled to a device; security signal based on the device's location relative to an authorized device — the monitoring component acting as the "authorized device"). A strong anticipation candidate for Claim 1 and the sensor-based method claims if the granted Claim 1 recites only (i) sensor removal and (ii) proximity/location-based signaling. It does not disclose the shroud, dock, fingers, or charging-cable features, so it does not anticipate the shroud+dock or handle+arms+dock claims.

C. Candidate examiner-cited references (from related Google Patents citation lists — medium confidence)

These appeared in the citation/similar-document lists on Google Patents pages adjacent to the family (e.g., the pages for US7614601 and US20140118930A1), and are marked with the Google Patents "cited" asterisk in the snippets. I could not confirm they appear on the '451 patent's own "References Cited" list, because the search tool did not return that section. They are, however, the most plausible examiner citations for this family, and each is independently relevant art in the tablet-security space.

3. US 8,814,128 B2 — "Display system for mobile electronic devices and associated methods" (listed on Google Patents alongside a "Centering mechanism with self-oriented mounting area" family)

• Assignee: Target Brands, Inc.
• Filing / publication: Filed September 28, 2012; granted August 26, 2014
• Description: Discloses a retail display system for mobile electronic devices, including a mounting area/centering mechanism that positions and secures a handheld device for customer interaction — i.e., a kiosk-style dock that receives and supports a portable electronic device.
• § 102 analysis: Effective filing date September 28, 2012 < June 11, 2013 → prior art under § 102(a)(2) (publication date of 2014 is irrelevant for (a)(2) so long as it's a U.S. application filed before the effective filing date; it also published). Relevant to the shroud+dock claims to the extent those claims cover a dock configured to receive and support a tablet, and to the dock-engagement aspects. It does not appear to disclose spring-biased locking fingers engaging a groove in a shroud handle, an electronic/mechanical key release, or the flexible charging cable inside the shroud — so full § 102 anticipation of the complete shroud+dock combination is unlikely; it is a § 103 candidate for the dock elements.

4. US 2014/0168884 A1 and US 9,760,116 B2 — "Docking station for tablet device"

• Assignee: Mobile Technologies, Inc. / Mobile Tech, Inc.
• Filing / publication: Filed December 5, 2012; published June 19, 2014 (A1); granted September 12, 2017 (B2)
• Description: Discloses a docking station for a tablet that receives and releasably locks the tablet, with a locking mechanism securing the device to the dock — a direct competitor product line (Mobile Tech) to InVue's docked-tablet security offerings. This is the closest art to the shroud+dock embodiment.
• § 102 analysis: Filed December 5, 2012 < June 11, 2013 → § 102(a)(2) prior art. This is the strongest anticipation candidate for the shroud+dock claims (dock configured to releasably engage/shroud-enclosed tablet; locked to the dock when engaged). Whether it fully anticipates depends on the granted claim's specific limitations (at least one extendable/retractable finger engaging a groove in the handle; mechanical and/or electronic key release; contact charging via a flexible cable extending along an interior surface of the shroud; 360° rotation of the shroud relative to the dock). The Mobile Tech dock does not disclose the InVue-specific flexible-cable-inside-shroud charging path, so § 102 anticipation of claims reciting that element likely fails; the reference would then be the primary § 103 reference for the dock/lock combination.

5. US 9,797,542 B2 and US 2014/0263929 A1 — "Latch and bezel system for device enclosure"

• Assignee: Lilitab LLC
• Filing / publication: Filed March 15, 2013; published September 18, 2014 (A1); granted October 24, 2017 (B2)
• Description: Discloses an enclosure (case/bezel) for a tablet with a latch system that secures the device within the enclosure — analogous to the '451 shroud that at least partially encloses the device, plus a locking/release mechanism.
• § 102 analysis: Filed March 15, 2013 < June 11, 2013 → § 102(a)(2) prior art (only 3 months before the priority date). Relevant to the shroud claims (shroud at least partially enclosing the device; sensor engaged with the shroud; shroud removal generates a security signal) to the extent the Lilitab bezel/latch is a shroud-like enclosure with a lock. It does not disclose the sensor/security-signal functionality or the dock/finger lock, so it cannot alone anticipate the combination claims.

6. US 2014/0366593 A1 and US 9,476,229 B2 — "Security strip defining a security slot and attachable to mobile electronic devices"

• Inventor: Meir Avganim
• Filing / publication: Filed June 18, 2013; published December 18, 2014 (A1); granted October 25, 2016 (B2)
• Description: Discloses a security strip/adapter attachable to a mobile electronic device, defining a security slot for engagement with a lock — relevant to attaching security hardware to a device without a full shroud.
• § 102 analysis: Important date flag — this is likely NOT § 102 prior art. Its filing date (June 18, 2013) is seven days after the '451 patent's earliest priority date (June 11, 2013). Under AIA § 102(a)(2), a U.S. application is prior art only if its effective filing date is before the claimed invention's effective filing date. If the '451 claims are properly entitled to the June 11, 2013 priority date, the Avganim application is not prior art. (It would become relevant only for any claim not entitled to that priority date.) Include it in the file wrapper as a cited reference, but do not rely on it for § 102.

D. References listed in related-document results that are NOT prior art (date flags)

The related-document lists also surfaced these, which cannot be § 102 prior art against claims entitled to the June 11, 2013 priority date — include them only for completeness and to avoid confusion:

E. Bottom line

Highest-confidence prior art (explicitly incorporated by reference in the '451 specification):

• US 7,737,845 B2 (June 15, 2010) → key/arming-disarming elements of the sensor and shroud+sensor claims.
• US 2012/0293330 A1 (published Nov. 22, 2012) → the strongest § 102(a) candidate for Claim 1 (sensor coupled to a device; security signal based on proximity/location relative to an authorized device).

Most relevant candidate examiner citations (medium confidence — not confirmed on the '451 record itself):

• US 9,760,116 B2 / US 2014/0168884 A1 (Mobile Tech) — closest art to the shroud+dock claims; primary § 102/§ 103 candidate for the dock-lock combination.
• US 8,814,128 B2 (Target Brands) — dock/display support art.
• US 9,797,542 B2 / US 2014/0263929 A1 (Lilitab) — shroud/enclosure-with-latch art.
• US 9,476,229 B2 / US 2014/0366593 A1 (Avganim) — likely not § 102 prior art (filed June 18, 2013, after the June 11, 2013 priority date).

Definitive next step: The authoritative "References Cited" list is on the USPTO Patent Center record for US12460451B2 and in the "Patent Citations" tab of the Google Patents page (https://patents.google.com/patent/US12460451B2/en), which my search tool did not return in full. The references above should be verified against that list before being relied upon in an invalidity or freedom-to-operate analysis.