US 7012503

I'll verify against live sources, then summarize from the authoritative patent text provided.

Let me check the claim set for this patent, since the page excerpt provided to me omitted verbatim claims.

US 7,012,503 B2 — Summary

Note on the ID: I searched literally for 7012503 (and US 7,012,503). I did not substitute similar numbers (e.g., the IPR exhibit bearings in the search results were for the '405, '374, and '701 patents — different patents entirely). The PTAB matter IPR2016-00686 concerned US 8,150,374, in which US 7,012,503 was merely filed as Exhibit 1004 (prior art), not as the patent under review.

Bibliographic data (per Google Patents / USPTO-facing records)

Caveat: the Google Patents page itself warns that listed assignees "may be inaccurate," and the expiration/status entries are expressly stated to be assumptions, not legal conclusions. No reissue, reexamination, or certificate of correction is reflected in the material I retrieved.

Abstract (verbatim)

"An efficient method and a system for controlling access to a location secured by a lock mechanism controlled by a lock control unit, which may provide a high degree of flexibility and a high level of security. The method includes the steps of storing a first access code in the lock control unit, the first access code being indicative of a predetermined access right to the location, and storing a plurality of access codes including a second access code in an electronic key device. Using the electronic key device, access to the location is requested by initiating transmission of the second access code to the lock control unit where the transmitted second access code is compared with the first access code and, if the first access code corresponds to the second access code, operation of the lock mechanism is initiated. The user can edit and rearrange the plurality of access codes to obtain access to a plurality of locations."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Important confidence caveat: the document text I was given contains the Abstract, the "Summary of the Invention," and the "Detailed Description," but not the verbatim claim set. The independent claims below are reconstructed from the Summary section's "characterised in that" language. The substance is well supported; the exact claim wording and the claim numbers should be verified against the granted claims before being relied on.

1. Independent method claim — controlling access to a location. A lock control unit holds a first access code representing a granted access right for that location. An electronic key device holds a second access code. The key device sends the second code to the lock control unit; the unit compares it with the first code and, on a match, actuates the lock. The point of novelty is that the key device's storage holds a plurality of access codes for a plurality of respective locations, and the user can select which stored code to transmit to the lock control unit.

2. Independent system claim — access control system. An electronic key device with transmitting means sends a control signal requesting a predetermined access right; a lock control unit with receiving means, processing means, and lock control means verifies the request and operates the lock accordingly. Novelty point: the key device's storage is adapted to hold a plurality of access codes identifying a plurality of access rights, letting the user send a selected one.

3. Independent claim — lock control unit (sub-combination). Receiving means for a control signal requesting an access right; processing means that verify the request; control means that operate the lock mechanism based on the verification result.

4. Independent claim — electronic key device (sub-combination). Transmitting means to send a control signal requesting a predetermined access right, plus storage means holding access codes for a plurality of predetermined access rights so a user can transmit a selected one.

5. Independent claim — removable storage module (e.g., a SIM card) for such a key device. It stores data items identifying a plurality of predetermined access rights and enables transmission of a selected stored code. A dependent embodiment adds processing means on the module itself to initiate the request.

6. Independent claim — computer system (central access-code management). Storage for data items corresponding to access codes; processing means to generate a second access code indicative of a first access right; and communications means to transmit that code to either the key device or the lock control unit for storage there. Dependent embodiments cover generating/transmitting a replacement (third) code and invalidating the earlier (second) code, whether on user request or at predetermined intervals.

7. Independent claim — method of managing an access right (service/business-method style). The access right is owned by an "access right owner" and granted to an "access right grantee." Steps: generate a first access code for the right; transfer it to a lock control unit; transfer a second access code to an electronic key device; acquire usage information about use of the access codes; and provide at least one additional service based on that information to the owner and/or grantee.

Enforcement / docket note

• The patent page's litigation panel lists several US district court cases — Texas Eastern (2:16-cv-00690, -00691, -01018, -01019; 2:20-cv-00156), C.D. California (2:20-cv-04806), N.D. Illinois (1:21-cv-05281, 1:21-cv-06261), and D. Colorado (1:20-cv-01479) — consistent with a Smart Lock LLC assertion campaign.
• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no 2026 Federal Circuit activity for 7012503. My targeted searches for 2026 Federal Circuit matters involving this patent number returned no results. Given that the patent is recorded as expired as of 2021-08-27, a live 2026 Federal Circuit appeal on this number would be surprising. I state this as "no evidence found" rather than a definitive negative — I cannot access the CAFC docket system directly, and PACER/CAFC records would be the authoritative check.

Where I am uncertain

• Verbatim claim language and independent-claim numbering (see caveat above).
• Exact §371 filing date nuances (the 2000-11-30 international filing vs. the later national-stage entry date).
• The current owner: the record shows a chain to Smart Lock, LLC, but the source explicitly disclaims accuracy for assignee listings.

I'll research this patent's litigation history using multiple searches.

Good, I'm getting substantive results. Let me dig deeper into specific cases.

Let me search for the remaining cases.

Based on my searches (Google Patents' litigation records for US 7,012,503, SEC/EDTX/UniCourt/Docket Alarm/PACER-derived sources), here is what is known. Note the search tool cut off before I could fully verify every docket's party names and final disposition, so I have flagged where information is incomplete rather than guessing.

Litigation involving US Patent No. 7,012,503

Patent: US 7,012,503 B2 — "Electronic key device a system and a method of managing electronic key information"
Inventor: Ernst Lykke Nielsen | Issued: March 14, 2006 | Priority: Nov. 30, 1999 | Filing: Nov. 30, 2000 (PCT/DK00/00655)
Asserting entity / current owner: Smart Lock, LLC (acquired via chain: Bording Data A/S → Trident IP Solutions, LLC (2014-01-24) → Texas IP Ventures II, LLC (2015-07-21) → Smart Lock, LLC (2016-06-27))
Status: Expired – Lifetime (adjusted expiration 2021-08-27)

There is substantial litigation on this patent. Google Patents' "Family has litigation" record and docket sources identify the following cases (case numbers taken literally from the cited sources):

2016 E.D. Texas campaign (Smart Lock, LLC as plaintiff)

• The '018 and '019 suits were reported in the Southeast Texas Record with the patent owner described as "Tyler-based Smart Lock," owner of US 7,012,503, "Electronic Key Device a System and a Method of Managing Electronic Key Information," issued Mar. 14, 2006. Counsel of record: Larry D. Thompson, Jr. (Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP, Houston). Presiding: Judge Rodney Gilstrap, Magistrate Roy S. Payne.
• Source: https://setexasrecord.com/stories/511011109-recent-patent-infringement-cases-filed-in-the-eastern-district-of-texas and https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2016cv00690/[169701](/patent/169701)

2020–2021 campaign

Sources:

• LockState: https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-smart-lock-llc-v-lockstate-inc-[501095](/patent/501095) (case no. 1:20-CV-01479)
• N.D. Ill. '6261: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Smart-Lock-LLC-v-The-Partnerships-and-Unincorporated-Associations-Identified-in-Schedule-A-id-[159724](/patent/159724)/documents and https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-smart-lock-llc-v-the-partnerships-andunincorporated-associations-identified-in-schedule-a-[1082439](/patent/1082439)
• Google Patents litigation links: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7012503/en

Important caveats and discrepancies

1. Defendant names not confirmed. For case numbers 2:16-cv-00691, 2:20-cv-00156, 2:20-cv-04806, and 1:21-cv-05281, the case numbers are documented in Google Patents' litigation record, but my searches did not return confirmed defendant identities. I am not supplying guessed names.

2. Design-patent discrepancy on the N.D. Ill. "Schedule A" cases. One docket source describes the N.D. Ill. Schedule A action as alleging design-patent infringement, while a case-tracking write-up expressly attributes N.D. Ill. case 21-cv-6261 to US 7,012,503 B2. These are inconsistent. I report both rather than reconciling them; the discrepancy may reflect different asserted patents across the two N.D. Ill. case numbers (1:21-cv-05281 and 1:21-cv-06261).

3. Filing dates are confirmed only for: 2:16-cv-00690 (06/30/2016), 2:16-cv-01018 and 2:16-cv-01019 (09/16/2016), 1:20-cv-01479 (05/25/2020), and 1:21-cv-06261 (11/22/2021). Others are given only by year.

4. Outcomes are largely unconfirmed. Most 2016 E.D. Tex. cases in this campaign appear to have resolved without a public trial outcome, but I could not verify specific dispositions (settlement, dismissal, etc.) beyond the single confirmed "Closed" status for 2:16-cv-00690 and the confirmed dismissal-with-prejudice for the N.D. Ill. Schedule A cases.

5. Patent numbered exactly as given. I did not find any evidence of CAFC appeals specifically for US 7,012,503. Note that separate CAFC/IPR materials I surfaced (e.g., ASSA ABLOY v. CPC Patent Technologies, IPR2022-01089, US 9,269,208) concern different patents and are not litigation on the '503 patent.

If you need the missing defendant names, filing dates, and dispositions (for '691, 2:20-cv-00156, 2:20-cv-04806, 1:21-cv-05281), those would require direct PACER pulls or the Unified Patents litigation portal — I can pursue those if you'd like.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live sources, since this patent was heavily litigated.

The first hit references a "'701 patent" but appears to be a different patent in a district court case. Let me dig deeper on Smart Lock's PTAB history.

Let me search specifically for PTAB proceedings by number and the district court cases' outcomes.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,012,503: zero. The structured PTAB block in this prompt (sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no AIA trial proceedings, and my web searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition ever filed against this patent — no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no termination, no appeal. The breakdown by status is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Bottom line for a defendant: the patent is entirely un-PTAB-tested — but it is also expired. The more important defensive fact than the (empty) PTAB docket is the legal-status field on the face of the record: Expired – Lifetime, with an adjusted expiration of 2021-08-27. All 16 claims stand as issued and untested, but there is no live infringement window left to litigate. The practical posture is not "hardened patent" and not "claims canceled" — it is "expired patent with an untested validity record, asserted only historically."

No proceedings to report

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block is explicit that the ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings as of the most recent ingest. I attempted to surface older or recently-filed proceedings that ODP might not have indexed (targeted searches on the patent number, the patent owner "Smart Lock LLC," and the 2016 E.D. Tex. defendants), and found none. I was cut off by a tool step limit before I could exhaustively query every docket aggregator, so treat the "zero" as high-confidence-but-not-absolute for CBM/PGR-era filings. Nothing I found contradicts it.

Important false positives I encountered — do NOT cite these as proceedings on 7012503:

1. A PTAB decision quoted in the S.D. Cal. record (case gov.uscourts.casd.524979) discusses anticipation of "claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-14, and 16 of the '701 patent" by Winkler, plus obviousness over Winkler+Dulaney and Winkler+Brei. The claim language there ("lock-out," "preventing said generation of indication of identity," "code generator… generates a header") is drawn to a transit notification / alert system, not to an electronic lock key. Although the claim numbering superficially overlaps (7012503 has 16 claims), the subject matter and references do not match this patent. That is a different '701 patent. I do not have its proceeding number and will not guess one.
2. IPR2019-00233 (Apple, August, ASSA ABLOY Inc., ASSA ABLOY AB identified as real parties-in-interest) concerns a '795 patent directed to a remote-operated deadbolt with a "reversible elongated member." Different patent. (exhibit of record)
3. IPR2022-01045 / IPR2022-01089, ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd., on US 9,269,208 — FWD 2023-12-20 determining no challenged claims unpatentable. Different patent. (Docket Alarm FWD) Relevant only as a pattern signal: August Home, Inc. — a 2016 Smart Lock defendant — was later acquired by ASSA ABLOY and became an active IPR petitioner, but never on 7012503.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All claims of US 7,012,503 — which per the record span claims 1–16 — remain as issued. Nothing was canceled, nothing was confirmed in a contested AIA trial, and nothing was narrowed by a PTAB decision. There is no FWD, no certificate under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b), and therefore no claim whose validity is fortified by surviving an IPR. Equally, no claim has been judicially or administratively adjudicated valid: the validity of all 16 claims is untested in any forum as far as I can determine.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is irrelevant here — estoppel requires an IPR that "results in a final written decision under section 318(a)," and there is none. That cuts both ways for a defendant: you are not blocked by any petitioner's estoppel, but you also cannot borrow a prior petitioner's win. Every invalidity ground is procedurally available to you ab initio, subject only to the usual district-court rules and the fact that no IPR can now be filed (see below).

Pattern signals. The patent attracted a genuinely large assertion campaign and still never drew a single IPR. Per the structured patent record, suits were filed against Master Lock/Fortune Brands (2:16-cv-01018), August Home (2:16-cv-00690), Spectrum Brands/Kwikset/UniKey (2:16-cv-00691), a further E.D. Tex. action (2:16-cv-01019), LockState in D. Colo. (1:20-cv-01479), a C.D. Cal. action (2:20-cv-04806), and N.D. Ill. Schedule A campaigns (1:21-cv-05281, 1:21-cv-06261). Plaintiff Smart Lock LLC (originally Bording Data AS; passed through Trident IP Solutions → Texas IP Ventures II → Smart Lock LLC) litigated in the "East Texas Management" / Direction IP Law style, with the 2021 cases run as confidential Schedule A e-commerce campaigns ending in voluntary dismissals with prejudice (see the N.D. Ill. docket summary at UniCourt). No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears to have challenged it at the Board.

The most plausible explanation for the empty PTAB docket is economic, not evidentiary: the patent's 20-year term ran from the 2000-11-30 filing, putting expiration at roughly 2020-11-30 plus the adjusted-expiration extension to 2021-08-27. A petition filed in 2020 or later would have been moot — the statutory 1-year FWD deadline from institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)) plus the ~6-month institution window would land well after the patent had already expired. By the time the Schedule A campaign began (October–November 2021), the patent was already dead. That is a reasonable inference, not a documented fact; I have not found a petitioner's stated reason.

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with expiration, not validity. The patent expired 2021-08-27. For any defendant facing a demand letter today (2026-09-30), there is no injunctive exposure and no ongoing royalty. Damages, if any, are limited to past infringement within the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286 — and even that window is largely or entirely foreclosed given the patent's 2021 expiry. Ask the asserting party to identify the specific accused acts and their dates; a demand premised on post-2021 conduct is meritless on its face.

2. There is no FWD to cite, so do not invent one. Because no AIA trial exists, there is no disposition to quote and no canceled claim to anchor a Rule 11 or § 285 argument to. Any demand letter you receive that cites "IPR results" or "invalidated claims" is fabricated — challenge it.

3. If validity is ever actually litigated, you have a clean slate: no § 315(e) estoppel constrains you, and no prior petitioner has consumed the best art. The prior art cited on the face of the patent includes WO 93/14571 (cellular telephone as electronic key), which the applicant distinguished during prosecution on the ground that it required manual entry of a user identification code. That reference, its family, and the reference-of-record set are the natural starting points. I have not performed a prior-art search and express no view on whether any ground would succeed.

4. Verify the null result before relying on it. Given my search was truncated, do a final confirmation pass: run a Patent Number search for 7012503 in PTAB E2E / PTAB Center, check USPTO PTAB Decisions, and query CourtListener for any Federal Circuit appeal of a Board decision. Absence of PTAB activity is itself the signal here — but it should be a verified absence.

Caveat on completeness: the structured ODP block is authoritative and reports zero AIA proceedings. My supplementary web searches corroborate that but were not exhaustive across every commercial docketing database before I reached my step limit. I found no proceeding and I have not fabricated any proceeding number; where I encountered similarly-numbered decisions, I have flagged them above as pertaining to different patents.

I'll research the assignment chain. Let me pull from multiple sources.

Let me dig into the assignment records and litigation/asserter directories.

Assignment Reconstruction — US 7,012,503 B2

Data-access caveat up front. My research tools returned the Google Patents legal-events record and litigation dockets for this patent, but I was unable to retrieve the underlying USPTO Assignment Center entries (reel/frame numbers and correspondents of record). I therefore report the assignment chain from the Google Patents legal-events ledger and flag every reel/frame and correspondent field as not verified rather than fabricating them. Search: USPTO Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov — query 7012503; and the Google Patents legal-events tab at https://patents.google.com/patent/US7012503/en#legalEvents for the source of the dates below.

Inventors

Unusual patterns: None detectable. This is a single-inventor portfolio originating from a Danish corporate applicant (PCT/DK00/00655). There is no evidence of inventor departure preceding the 2014 divestiture that I could verify — but note the ~14-year gap between filing (1999-11-30 priority) and the first third-party transfer (recorded 2014-01-24), which is more consistent with a long-dormant corporate asset being monetized than with an inventor-driven spin-out. I could not confirm Nielsen's employment status beyond the assignment record.

Original assignee

Bording Data A/S (spelled Bording Data AS as original assignee on the face of the patent; assignee of record after the 2002-05-21 inventor assignment). A Danish entity — the data arm of the Bording group, whose principal business is commercial printing/graphic-arts and print-related data services (moderate confidence; not independently verified here). This is a Danish operating company, not a US shell.

• Product embodying the claims: Not determinable from available sources. The patent claims an electronic-key/access-code management system (mobile key device + lock control unit + central access-code management), and Bording's delivery is printing/data rather than lock hardware; I found no evidence Bording commercialized a lock product.
• Current status: Not verified. The 2014-01-24 transfer of the entire portfolio out of Bording is the classic profile of a non-core asset divestiture. I could not confirm whether Bording Data A/S remains operating, was absorbed into the Bording group, or was dissolved. Do not treat "dissolved" as established — it is unverified.

Assignment timeline

Dates below are the recordation/reassignment dates reported by Google Patents legal events. Execution dates were not retrievable. Reel/frame and correspondent fields are not verified — the Assignment Center entries were not accessible to me.

1. 2002-05-21 (recordation date as reported) — Reel not verified

   • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor-to-employer)
   • Assignor: Ernst Lykke Nielsen
   • Assignee: Bording Data A/S
   • Correspondent: not verified
   • Context: Routine inventor assignment to the original corporate assignee, recorded around US national-stage entry (App. 10/129,963).

2. 2014-01-24 / recorded 2014-01-24 — Reel not verified

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Bording Data A/S
   • Assignee: Trident IP Solutions, LLC
   • Correspondent: not verified
   • Context: Divestiture / transfer to an IP-holding LLC — first exit of the asset from the Danish operating company into a US LLC.

3. 2015-07-21 / recorded 2015-07-21 — Reel not verified

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Trident IP Solutions, LLC
   • Assignee: Texas IP Ventures II, LLC
   • Correspondent: not verified
   • Context: Intermediate hop in a chained LLC cascade (~18 months after the prior link).

4. 2016-06-27 / recorded 2016-06-27 — Reel not verified

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: Texas IP Ventures II, LLC
   • Assignee: Smart Lock, LLC (current assignee per Google Patents)
   • Correspondent: not verified
   • Context: Transfer-to-asserter — Smart Lock, LLC filed its first infringement suits against lock makers three days later (see next section).

Subsequent event (not an assignment): 2021-08-27 — adjusted expiration recorded; the patent is now Expired – Lifetime per Google Patents legal status.

Note on the record gap: I could not confirm whether the Assignment Center also contains lien/security-agreement or name-change entries not shown in the Google Patents legal-events ledger. This is a genuine data gap, not a finding of "no records." A manual Assignment Center/PEDS pull by patent number is required to close it.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7012503
    1999 : Priority date
         : Invented by Ernst Lykke Nielsen
    2000 : PCT filed by Bording Data AS
    2002 : Inventor assigns to Bording Data
         : US national stage entered
    2006 : Patent issued
    2014 : Assigned to Trident IP Solutions LLC
    2015 : Assigned to Texas IP Ventures II LLC
    2016 : Assigned to Smart Lock LLC
         : First suits filed in EDTX
    2020 : Further suits filed in multiple districts
    2021 : Patent expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Litigation context (from Google Patents / dockets): Smart Lock, LLC has sued in E.D. Tex. (2:16-cv-00690, 2:16-cv-00691, 2:16-cv-01018, 2:16-cv-01019, 2:20-cv-00156), C.D. Cal. (2:20-cv-04806), N.D. Ill. (1:21-cv-05281, 1:21-cv-06261), and D. Colo. (1:20-cv-01479). Representative docket: Smart Lock, LLC v. Spectrum Brands (Kwikset) et al., 2:16-cv-00691, filed 2016-06-30 in Marshall Division before Judge Gilstrap.

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. The patent left a Danish operating company (Bording Data A/S) for Trident IP Solutions, LLC on 2014-01-24, then passed through Texas IP Ventures II, LLC (2015-07-21) to Smart Lock, LLC (2016-06-27). All three transferees are LLCs with IP-holding/venture naming and no verifiable product; the terminal assignee's only visible activity is patent litigation across four districts. (Caveat: the naming alone is not the finding — the finding rests on the three-hop LLC-only chain plus Smart Lock, LLC's 2016–2021 assertion campaign.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — UNCLEAR. None of the enumerated public NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities) appears in this chain. Smart Lock, LLC is a repeat plaintiff not on the enumerated lists; I could not confirm a Unified Patents or RPX "high-frequency plaintiff" listing for it from available results, so I mark this unclear, not present.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / DATA GAP. The correspondent of record for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 recordings is the single most probative tell here, and I could not retrieve it. The litigation-side counsel is a recurring NPE-side firm: Matthew J. Antonelli, Zachariah Harrington, Larry Dean Thompson, Jr. (Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson, LLP), who appear as counsel for plaintiff Smart Lock, LLC in 2:16-cv-00691 and also appear in Docket Navigator as top counsel representing patent owners against Unified Patents challenges in unrelated NPE matters — e.g. in IPR2019-01667 (Apple v. Uniloc 2017 LLC). That recurrence suggests a repeat-player NPE practice group, but litigation counsel is not the assignment correspondent, so I do not treat it as a signal-3 hit. Verify reel/frame correspondents to resolve.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT. Three consecutive assignments in ~29 months (2014-01-24 → 2015-07-21 → 2016-06-27), each to a different LLC, no intervening operating activity, terminating in an entity that files suit days later. Correspondent addresses for the three links were not retrievable, so I cannot confirm a shared correspondent address — a data gap that weakens the "common principals" prong.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (strongest signal). Smart Lock, LLC acquired the patent 2016-06-27 and filed its first suits 2016-06-30 (2:16-cv-00691 against Spectrum Brands/Kwikset and UniKey; 2:16-cv-00690 and its siblings). A three-day gap between the terminal assignment and the first assertion is the textbook signature of a chain arranged to establish clean standing in the plaintiff-friendly Marshall Division.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No evidence Bording Data A/S (or any link) was in Chapter 7/11 proceedings; the 2014 sale reads as a voluntary non-core divestiture, not a court-supervised sale.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR. No SEC filing or Patent Progress/EFF coverage was surfaced linking Bording (or an operating licensee) to Smart Lock, LLC's assertion campaign against competitors. Without that evidence I do not call privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at Smart Lock, LLC, an asserting entity, not at RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN. Inverse note: the patent's technical value as prior art was actually leveraged defensively — it is Exhibit 1004 in IPR2016-00686 (challenging US 8,150,374) — but that is third-party use of the disclosure, not an ownership transfer, and does not neutralize the patent.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two independent strong signals plus a corroborating cascade: (i) a shell-entity transfer of the patent out of Danish operating company Bording Data A/S into Trident IP Solutions, LLC (recorded 2014-01-24) and on to Smart Lock, LLC (recorded 2016-06-27) via Texas IP Ventures II, LLC (recorded 2015-07-21), with no operating activity at any LLC link; and (ii) a pre-litigation transfer in which Smart Lock, LLC filed its first infringement suits (E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-00690/00691) just three days after recording the assignment. The cascade of three LLC-only transfers in ~29 months satisfies signal 4. The principal evidential gap — the correspondent of record and reel/frame numbers on the 2014/2015/2016 recordings — should be filled from the USPTO Assignment Center before this is treated as final, since a repeating correspondent across those three links would upgrade the finding from high to near-certain and could identify the principals behind Trident IP Solutions, Texas IP Ventures II, and Smart Lock.

I'll research US patent 7012503 and its cited prior art. Let me run several searches.

Let me get the specific citation lists for this patent from Justia and Google Patents.

Let me look for the patent's own front-page references via FreePatentsOnline and Espacenet.

1. Identification of the patent (verified)

I searched for the specific number 7012503 (not similar numbers) and cross-checked the bibliographic record. The patent is:

Sources: Google Patents US7012503B2 (full text supplied), uspto.report/patent/grant/7012503, wiki.golden.com structured-data record, and the family listing reproduced in JP 2012517541 A.

2. Important scope caveat before the § 102 analysis

I was not able to retrieve a verbatim copy of the certified front‑page "(56) References Cited" table for US 7,012,503 from USPTO within this session. The searches returned (a) the full patent text, (b) the family, and (c) many later patents that cite 7,012,503 (i.e., "cited‑by" references — the direction is the reverse of what you asked for). I will not invent citation numbers to fill that gap. Below, I separate (A) prior art that I can confirm from the patent's own specification, from (B) the "cited‑by" direction, and I flag where verification is required.

Note also that the patent describes many technical concepts (SMS, IrDa, SIM cards, GSM, WAP, Bluetooth) as background/embodiment matter but does not cite specific patents for them.

3. Prior art expressly identified in the specification of 7,012,503

Reference A — WO 93/14571 (PCT)

• Full citation: International patent application WO 93/14571 (published 1993; "Secure entry system" utilising a cellular telephone as an electronic key device).
• Publication/filing date: published July 1993 (title/per‑art date 1993‑07).
• Brief description (as characterized by the '503 specification): A secure entry system in which a user operates a cellular telephone to transmit RF signals to a lock, pressing the telephone's buttons as he would buttons on a key card to gain access; the lock checks whether the user identified by the button operations is on a list of authorized users maintained in the lock memory.
• Identified problem (the '503 "distinguishing" argument): The '503 specification states the prior art "requires a manual entering of some sort of user identification code ... a lengthy process, in particular if the code is sufficiently long in order to provide sufficient security," and that erroneous entry denies access and forces repetition.
• § 102 relevance / which claims it potentially anticipates:
  • It is the closest single-reference art for the base platform claim(s): those covering an electronic key device that transmits a code to a lock, the lock stores valid codes, and the lock compares/verifies before operating a lock mechanism (i.e., the method claim and the system claim in their broadest recitations, and the lock‑control‑unit claim).
  • It is preferred as a § 102(e)/§ 102(b) reference against the "storing/verifying in the lock" limitations, but it does not disclose, on its face, the core point of novelty of the '503 claims — storing a plurality of access codes for a plurality of respective locations in the second storage means (the electronic key device / SIM) and selecting one of the stored codes for transmission. The '503 specification itself frames that "characterizing" feature as the inventive delta.
  • Best characterization: potential § 103 combination reference (with a multi‑code storage/mobile‑terminal teaching) rather than a clean § 102 anticipation of the independent claims; a genuine § 102 risk mainly for any claim that does not require the plurality‑of‑codes/selection limitation.

Reference B — Family/priority publications (self-authored; § 102(a)/102(e) caution)

• US 2002/0180582 A1 (2002‑12‑05) — the pre‑grant publication of the same application.
• WO 01/40605 A1 and WO 01/41075 A1 (both 2001‑06‑07), EP 1234084 A1 (2002‑08‑28), JP 2003‑515688 A (2003‑05‑07).
• These are the applicant's own earlier publications/equivalents. They are not § 102 prior art against 7,012,503 itself (same inventive entity/priority), except that they may need to be considered if a claim is entitled to only a later effective filing date. Flag them as family members, not prior art, in any chart.

4. The "citations of 7,012,503" in the reverse direction (explicitly labeled)

To avoid the exact mistake you warned about, note that the following are patents that cite 7,012,503, i.e., the opposite of "prior art for 7,012,503." They appeared repeatedly in my searches and must not be counted as its prior art:

• US 7,471,280 (Giobbi); US 7,305,560 (Giobbi); US 8,150,374 (Lowe); US 9,898,881; US 9,858,740; US D934,658; US 11,447,980 (each listing "7012503 | March 14, 2006 | Nielsen" in their Referenced Cited tables).

There is one context worth noting for the record: US 7,012,503 itself was used as prior art (Exhibit 1004) in IPR2016‑00686 concerning U.S. Pat. No. 8,150,374 — i.e., the '503 is the attack reference there, again the reverse of your request.

5. What I could not confirm, and how to close the gap

I could not confirm the complete certified list of references the Examiner cited against 7,012,503 (the "(56) References Cited" U.S. and foreign sections). Concrete items I would verify in the file wrapper before relying on any § 102 chart:

1. The USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier "References Cited" tab for application 10/129,963.
2. The foreign search‑report citations from the DK priority application (1999‑11‑30) and the PCT/DK00/00655 ISR — these frequently include the "closest prior art" that the U.S. Examiner then adopts.
3. The class‑subclass search notes in G07C 9/00182 and G07C 9/00571 (the "interacting with a central unit" and unidirectional‑transmission art, e.g., the Gokcebay/Keskin family that recurred in my searches: US 5,228,730; 5,245,329; 5,337,043; 5,887,644; 5,894,277; 6,000,609; 6,374,653 — these are lock‑memory/G07C9 art typical of such citations).

Each of those, once retrieved verbatim, should be charted separately as: full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and the specific independent claim(s) it could anticipate under § 102 (method / access‑control‑system / lock‑control‑unit / electronic‑key‑device / removable‑storage‑module / computer‑system / method‑of‑managing‑an‑access‑right), plus whether it can also reach the dependent claims directed to validity periods, access‑right attributes, invalidating an access code, and the access‑code data fields (FIG. 4).

6. Bottom line

• Confirmed as the only prior art actually discussed by the patent itself: WO 93/14571 — a cellular‑telephone secure entry system with the lock holding a list of authorized users. It is the most relevant single reference for the broad "code transmitted to lock → lock compares → lock operates" claim(s), but the specification's own "characterizing" limitation (a plurality of access codes for a plurality of locations stored in the key device, user‑selected for transmission) is what distinguishes the '503 claims from it.
• Do not treat the long "7012503 | Nielsen" lists in US 9,898,881, US 11,447,980, US D934,658, etc. as prior art for 7,012,503 — those are forward citations.
• I have deliberately not fabricated the remainder of the front‑page citation list; it requires file‑wrapper verification (PatentCenter app. 10/129,963), which I flagged in item 5 above rather than guessing.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent before constructing the obviousness analysis.

Let me pull the patent's own cited-art list and check a few specific candidate references.

I hit the tool-call limit before I could pull the patent's full "References Cited" table, so I'll be explicit below about which references I actually verified and which I could not. I've built the analysis on (a) the prior art the patent itself discusses, (b) the Google Patents "Prior art keywords" set, and (c) references I independently verified by search.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,012,503 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. A contradiction to flag first

In the earlier "Patent summary" section it was stated that the verbatim claim set was unavailable, and the system claim was reconstructed as: "storage adapted to hold a plurality of access codes identifying a plurality of access rights, letting the user send a selected one."

I have now located partial claim text (Justia, https://patents.justia.com/patent/[7012503](/patent/7012503)), and granted claim 12 contains two additional limitations the earlier reconstruction omitted:

"…enabling a user to initiate transmitting a selected one of the stored access codes to the lock control unit and enabling a user to edit and rearrange the plurality of stored access codes, said memory being configured to store a plurality of access code data items, each access code data item having an identifier identifying a corresponding lock control unit for which the access code is valid."

This matters for § 103: the "edit and rearrange" and "lock-control-unit identifier" limitations are the two places where a validity challenge is strongest (they map almost verbatim onto the "bundle of keys" problem and onto addressable lock IDs), and the earlier summary under-stated that. I flag this as a correction to the prior section, and I retain the caveat that I have verified only claims 1–27 (in part, via a secondary aggregator) and not the exact wording/numbers of the later independent claims (lock control unit, electronic key device, removable storage module, computer system, managing method).

1. Framework and the level of ordinary skill

• Law: Priority is 1999-11-30; PCT filed 2000-11-30; national stage; issued 2006-03-14. Application filed before 2013-03-16, so pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 governs. Prior art must therefore qualify under § 102(a), (b), or (e). The KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) framework applies to the combination question (Graham factors).
• POSITA: A design engineer with ~2–3 years' experience in electronic access control and/or mobile terminals, familiar with RF/IR data links, microcontroller-based locks, SIM-based GSM handset architecture, and central-station ("clearinghouse") access administration. This is the level the '503 specification itself assumes (it treats IrDA, SMS, GSM, SIM cards, and WAP as off-the-shelf).
• The patent's own admission: The Background section of the '503 patent expressly cites WO 93/14571 and characterizes it as teaching "a secure entry system utilising a cellular telephone as an electronic key device… a user operates the cellular telephone to transmit RF signals to a lock… the lock checks whether the user identified by the button operations is on a list of authorised users maintained in the lock memory." That admission is decisive for the preamble of every independent claim and narrows the case to the characterizing feature.

2. Prior art identified and verified

A date caveat: I also surfaced WO 99/66741 ("programming the sending of one or more unique control signals to operate several remote devices" — garage door, gate, home security, lighting) and the EP 1 212 915 B1 / US 7,136,632 PLMN/SIM key-code system (mobile station with SIM memory means, IR link CH2 to control system SS, WAP/server). I could not confirm their priority/publication dates, and both may post-date the 1999-11-30 priority date. I therefore do not rely on them as § 103 art below and mention them only as corroboration of the general state of the art.

3. Independent-claim analysis

3.1 Claim 1 (method) — the core ground

Claim 1's preamble (first code stored in the lock control unit; second code in the key device; transmit; compare; operate the lock on a match) is fully met by Reference A alone. The only limitation left is the characterizing clause: "storing a plurality of access codes for a plurality of respective locations in the second storage means, enabling a user to initiate transmitting a selected one of the stored access codes."

Ground 1 — A + C (+ D): A + C renders claim 1 obvious.

Motivation to combine (the crux):

1. Common field and common problem. Both A and C are electronic-access-control/portable-identifier art. C expressly frames the problem as one person holding a multitude of access codes for different access elements, including door locks — precisely the "large bundle of keys" problem recited in the '503 Background. The '503 patent's own framing of the invention ("a plurality of different access codes to different buildings may be stored and related to one or more electronic key devices") is the same problem statement as C's. Where the references address the same problem, the motivation requirement of Metalcraft of Mayville v. Toro, 848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017), is satisfied.
2. A itself supplies the one-device/many-locks context. A is illustrated "with reference to exemplary applications in the industrial site security, real estate lockbox, and transportation fields," and its US counterpart claims a plurality of keys used with a lock. A person implementing A across such installations would naturally face many codes per user.
3. Predictable result / known technique. Storing a set of codes and selecting one for transmission is a known technique (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 — "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions"). C provides the storage-and-selection technique for access codes specifically.
4. Articulated benefit, not hindsight. A's own operation requires a live clearinghouse call per lock ("[a] user who seeks access… establishes communication… to a clearinghouse"; voice prompts solicit the lock ID and PIN). Putting the codes on the key device and selecting locally eliminates that per-use round trip — the same latency/cost argument the '503 patent advances ("the direct communication is fast and does not need to involve an additional communications network provider"). This is a design choice with a predictable, articulated advantage, not an after-the-fact rationalization.
5. D supplies, at a subordinate level, the removable-module location for that storage where the key device is a mobile telephone.

3.2 Claim 12 (system) — the strongest and the weakest limitation

Claim 12 adds: (i) plurality of codes for plurality of access rights; (ii) edit and rearrange; (iii) each access code data item has an identifier of the corresponding lock control unit.

• Limitation (i): as § 3.1.
• Limitation (ii) "edit and rearrange": A's clearinghouse model requires the user to identify the lock he wants (by number or descriptive information) and the codes/lists are established and revised at the central station ("revising said established order after certain of the keys have already accessed the lock," US 5,706,991 cl. 4). C is about rearranging/retrieving a personal set of codes. A delivery-route ordering of codes is the obvious ordering use. This is an easy limitation for a challenger.
• Limitation (iii) "identifier identifying a corresponding lock control unit": This is the FIG. 4 lock control unit ID 402 field. A identifies its lock "by a number"; US 5,706,991 cl. 2 keeps a list at the central station and relays it to the lock; H's claim language is code-based entry. Thus an addressed-code data format is squarely suggested.

Ground 2 — A + C + B: renders claim 12 obvious. B contributes the validity/time-window attribute and the central-station database; H corroborates pre-stored-code comparison.

3.3 Claims 25–27 (central computer means; information signal back; invalidation control signal)

These are the easiest independent-claim family to attack, because A discloses the central computer as a structural matter:

• Claim 25 (computer means with storage of codes + communications means to transmit an access code to the key device or the lock control unit) → A discloses clearinghouse 18 / computer 20 / database 24 transmitting authorization by radio to the lock; F discloses radio access codes and lockout lists sent to lock units and disable instructions sent to key units; G discloses signals periodically reauthorizing continued use sent to a card. Combined: transmission of a code to either endpoint.
• Claim 26 (information signal back to the computer means) → A: the clearinghouse "also desirably reports back to the user…" and relays lock-specific status information; US 5,706,991 cl. 11: "relayed data includes data identifying keys presented to the lock."
• Claim 27 (second control signal initiating invalidation of an access code) → F ("disable instructions to key units"); G (periodic reauthorization); and E (a re-transmitted code "remains ineffective" — invalidation by construction).

Ground 3 — A + F + G (+ B): renders claims 25–27 obvious. Motivation: centralized administration of a fleet of locks and keys is the explicit purpose of A and F (same assignee lineage), and remote disable/reissue is the standard means of maintaining security when a key is lost or a user leaves — an articulated, security-driven reason.

3.4 The "managing an access right" service claim (owner/grantee; acquire usage data; provide additional service)

Even setting Alice/§ 101 aside (outside this task), § 103 is straightforward: A discloses the economic architecture — the clearinghouse "reports back to the user" and relays "status information," including, in the real-estate-lockbox example, "a change in price of the listed real estate," "a reminder to disable a burglar alarm," and "a notice that the owner or another real estate agent is at the house." US 5,706,991 adds the central-station database and the logging of key-identification data. Providing a value-added service to the access-right owner/grantee based on that logged usage data is the stated purpose of A's clearinghouse.

Ground 4 — A + B: renders the managing-method claim obvious.

3.5 The sub-combination claims (lock control unit; electronic key device; removable storage module; computer system)

• Lock control unit (receiving means / verification means / lock-actuating means): met by A (receiver 14 + lock 12) and by E (receiver 2 with ROM comparison + signal 9 to the lock). Combination of A + E for IR and ROM-based comparison.
• Electronic key device with a plurality of stored codes: A (cellular telephone as key) + C (multiple codes in one portable device). H corroborates a handset transmitting pre-stored codes.
• Removable storage module: D is the closest art (removable memory means storing a user verification code in a wireless device). A (handset) + D (removable module) → obvious. Motivation: SIM-based handsets were the GSM norm (and the '503 patent treats SIM storage as a given: "the access codes are stored on the SIM card of the mobile phone"). Also note A's own US counterpart speaks of a "paging receiver within an electronic key to provide a unit with dual functionality" — i.e., modularizing the key function.
• Computer system (generate code; transmit to key device or lock): A + F + G as in § 3.3.

4. Dependent claims

Conclusion on dependents: once claim 1/12 fall, the dependents fall with them; each adds only a separately known technique (IR link, time windows, reissue/invalidation, keypad entry) applied to the same system for its established purpose. No dependent claim appears to carry an independent inventive step on this record.

5. Anticipated counter-arguments and why they likely fail

1. "A teaches away — A deliberately uses a live clearinghouse; putting codes on the key undermines that model."
   Weak: A's own lock already performs the comparison against "a list of authorised users maintained in the lock memory." A thus already embodies the local-comparison architecture; the clearinghouse is an administrative/reprogramming channel, not the exclusive authorization path. Under In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981), the test is what the prior art as a whole teaches, not physical bodily incorporation.
2. "The references are non-analogous." Not sustainable: A, B, C, D, E, F, G are all electronic access control / portable identifier / wireless activation art.
3. "Hindsight from the applicant's own problem statement." The problem ("bundle of keys," multiple buildings per delivery worker) is recited in C and inherent in A's multi-lock deployments — it is not a problem first identified by the '503 inventor.
4. "Secondary considerations." No evidence of nexus-bearing commercial success, licensing-due-to-merits, or long-felt need has been presented in the materials I have. The patent is expired (adjusted expiration 2021-08-27) and was the subject of an assertion campaign by Smart Lock, LLC (E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-00690 / -00691 / -01018 / -01019, 2:20-cv-00156; C.D. Cal. 2:20-cv-04806; N.D. Ill. 1:21-cv-05281 / -06261; D. Colo. 1:20-cv-01479), but I found no adjudicated validity determination, no IPR on the '503 patent itself, and no CAFC appeal on this patent number. The only PTAB matter involving the document was IPR2016-00686, where US 7,012,503 was filed merely as Exhibit 1004 (prior art) against US 8,150,374 — not as the challenged patent. I state this as "no evidence found," not as a definitive negative.

6. Bottom line

On this record, US 7,012,503 claims 1 and 12, and the corresponding sub-combination and central-computer claims, appear vulnerable to a § 103 challenge, with the strongest single ground being:

WO 93/14571 (US 6,072,402) in view of US 6,055,635, further in view of US 5,706,991 and JP H04-503747 — covering the method, system, key-device, removable-module and lock-control-unit claims; and
WO 93/14571 in view of US 4,766,746 and WO 90/13096 (with US 5,706,991) — covering the central-computer and managing-method claims.

The pivot is that the '503 patent's distinguishing feature (a key device that holds and lets the user select among many codes for many locations) is two separate known techniques — local code comparison (A, E, H) and multi-code portable storage with selection (C) — combined for an articulated, predictable benefit (eliminating the per-use clearinghouse round trip, which A's own architecture makes costly). Dependent claims adding IR (E), validity windows (B), invalidation/reissue (F, G) and route-ordering of codes appear to add nothing patentable.

7. Limits of this analysis (stated candidly)

1. I was unable to retrieve the patent's face-of-patent "References Cited" list, so my prior-art set is drawn from the '503 Background/Google Patents prior-art keywords plus independent search. The examiner of record may have cited additional art that would strengthen (or, if the applicant overcame it, weaken) these grounds.
2. I have verified only claims 1–27, and only through a secondary aggregator (Justia). The exact wording and numbering of the later independent claims (lock control unit, electronic key device, removable storage module, computer system, managing method) remain unverified, and my § 3.5 conclusions are correspondingly provisional.
3. Reference dates for US 6,055,635 (§ 102(e) via its 1997-03-14 filing) and for the WO 94/01963 / JP H04-503747 family should be confirmed against the actual documents before being relied on; and I explicitly excluded WO 99/66741 and EP 1 212 915 / US 7,136,632 because I could not confirm whether their dates place them in § 102 prior art.
4. A proper § 103 opinion would also require a claim-construction pass (e.g., "electronic key device," "access code," "location," and whether the "computer means"/"first processing means" language triggers § 112 ¶ 6 — a point the PTAB did address for the different '701 patent in IPR2015-00397, and which would matter here).