US 8004410

I'll search for the specific patent and any related litigation/docket information.

Let me get the actual claim text and confirm the front-page bibliographic data.

Let me try to retrieve the granted claim set directly.

US 8,004,410 B2 — Analyst Summary

Confidence note up front: I was able to confirm the bibliographic data and abstract below from authoritative sources (the Google Patents record supplied to me, plus corroborating records). I was NOT able to retrieve the verbatim granted US claim text of 8,004,410 — the authoritative full text I was given is truncated after the "Description of the Invention," before the claims, and my searches surfaced the claim language only for foreign family members (EP 3223186 A1, JP 2005532625 A), not the US grant. I flag this explicitly rather than reconstructing claims from memory. Details below.

1. Bibliographic data (high confidence)

Continuity chain (from the specification's Related Applications section):

• US 12/688,666 → continuation of Ser. No. 11/279,912 (filed 2006-04-17, now US 7,671,746)
• → continuation of Ser. No. 10/615,026 (filed 2003-07-09, now US 7,081,819)
• → claims priority to provisional 60/394,241 (filed 2002-07-09)

Assignment history of note: a 2014-05-13 reassignment to NEOLOGY, INC. from BNC IP Switzerland GmbH (assignors Rietzler and Martinez de Velasco Cortina) preceded the 2026-02-11 assignment to Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. The Google Patents record lists BNC IP Switzerland as an intervening holder, consistent with the Smartrac/Neology corporate chain.

Representative CPC classes: G06Q20/32 (wireless payment), G06K7/0008, G06K19/067, G06K19/077, G07C9/00, H04W12/06, H04L63/08.

2. Abstract (verbatim, from the record)

"The present invention provides a method and system for verifying and tracking identification information. In an embodiment of the invention, a system for delivering security solutions is provided that includes at least one of the following: a radio frequency (RF) identification device, an identification mechanism (e.g., a card, sticker), and an RF reader."

3. Overview of the disclosure (high confidence)

The patent is a broad "RFID platform" specification covering six disclosed embodiments:

1. RF registered item (e.g., license plate) — FIGS. 5–8
2. RF identification mechanism (e.g., passport) — FIGS. 9–11
3. RF communications device (e.g., cellular telephone) — FIGS. 12–14
4. Border crossing control — FIGS. 15–18
5. Limiting software downloads to authorized users — FIGS. 3A–3B, 19–21
6. Airport security — FIGS. 22–23

The core hardware is a passive contactless RF device comprising a chip (EEPROM memory, cryptographic block, security management unit, instruction sequencer, modulator/demodulator, AC/DC converter, power control) plus an RF antenna, embedded in an identification mechanism. The spec describes physical security features (holograms, microprint, UV fluorescence, IR-activated "taggant" up-conversion materials), cryptographic key-based memory access control, and biometric one-to-one verification (fingerprint, iris, facial).

4. Independent claims — plain-language overview

⚠️ Confidence caveat: I could not read the granted US claim set of 8,004,410. The overview below is reconstructed from the EP 3223186 A1 abstract (a family member sharing the same application corpus) and JP 2005532625 A claim text, both of which describe the "vehicle registration verification" independent claims of this family. US claim numbering and exact wording may differ.

Based on the family records, the independent claims fall into at least two groups:

(A) System claim — vehicle registration verification

• The system includes a license plate.
• An RF device (RF antenna + chip) is embedded onto the license plate.
• The chip has a memory configured to store a security key and vehicle identification information.
• A processor coupled to the memory is configured to:
  • provide access to the memory based on a security key;
  • receive a signal via the RF antenna comprising a request to access the memory and a security key;
  • compare the received security key against the stored security key; and
  • receive an access request via the RF antenna from an RF reader to read the vehicle identification information.

(B) Method claim — verifying vehicle registration / operator authorization

• Storing first verification information on a chip having an RF antenna;
• Incorporating the chip into a license plate attached to the vehicle;
• Reading the first verification information from the license plate with an RF reader;
• Obtaining second verification information from the user (e.g., fingerprint, facial check); and
• Comparing the first and second information to determine whether a match exists (i.e., verifying the individual's identity and authority to possess/operate the vehicle).

The family records also indicate further independent claims directed to the RF device itself (a "radio frequency device comprising a radio frequency antenna embedded in a chip") and to systems/methods for verifying vehicle registration information more generally. The specification supports a wide range of claimed subject matter (passport, cellular telephone/POS transactions, border crossing, software licensing, airport security), so additional independent claims beyond the vehicle-registration group are plausible — but I cannot confirm their number or scope without the granted text.

Suggested verification step: pull the claim set directly from USPTO Patent Center / Patent Public Search for US 12/688,666, or from the granted-PDF at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US8004410.pdf, to confirm the exact count and wording of independent claims.

5. Litigation / docket findings (2026 CAFC search)

No 2026 CAFC docket specifically naming US 8,004,410 was found in my searches. What I did find:

• Family-level litigation flag: Google Patents marks this family "Has litigation."
• Neology enforcement against Kapsch TrafficCom (D. Del. 1:13-cv-02052) asserted sibling patents US 8,237,568; 8,325,044; US 8,587,436; and US 7,119,664 — these were the subject of IPRs IPR2015-00808, -00814, -00815, -00818, -00819, -00823, -00824. (The '410 is a family member but I did not confirm it was separately asserted.)
• Neology, Inc. v. Federal Signal Corp., et al (D. Del. 1:11-cv-00672; ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-875) — RFID patent dispute, settled.
• 2026 suits involving the current assignee, Mobility IP Holdings — but these assert different patents, not the '410:
  • Mobility IP Holding, LLC v. Para Mobility PTY LTD, 3:26-cv-01456 (N.D.N.Y., filed 2026-07-28) — asserts 9,863,577 and 10,125,920.
  • Mobility IP et al v. Samsung Electronics, 2:26-cv-00157 (E.D. Tex., filed 2026-02-27).
  • Mobility IP v. Apple, 7:26-cv-00075 (W.D. Tex.) — asserts 8,151,345.

Uncertainty: I could not query PACER or the CAFC docket system directly; my litigation picture is drawn from secondary aggregators (Justia, UniCourt, CourtListener, Docket Alarm, DED opinions). It is possible a 2026 CAFC appeal touching the '410 exists that did not surface in these searches, and I state that as an unresolved gap rather than a negative finding.

6. Key sources

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US8004410/en (authoritative record supplied)
• http://data.epo.org/gpi/EP3223186A1 (EP family member; vehicle-registration claim abstract)
• https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2005532625A/en (JP family member; method claim text)
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9922217](/patent/9922217) (family listing; inventor/assignee confirmation)
• https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/11-672_0.pdf (Neology v. Federal Signal, D. Del.)
• Docket Alarm IPR2015-00824 record (Kapsch/Neology IPR family)

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8004410 across litigation databases and court records.

Litigation Search — US Patent No. 8,004,410 ("System and method for providing secure identification solutions")

Bottom line

I did not locate any litigation, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding in which U.S. Patent No. 8,004,410 ("the '410 patent") is specifically identified as an asserted patent.

That is a negative finding based on the searches I was able to run, not a certification that none exists. Two important caveats:

1. The '410 patent is in a heavily-litigated family. Google Patents flags the '410 record with "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed," linking to Darts-IP family ID 30115697 (https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=30115697). That is a family-level flag, and it attaches to the family because sibling patents ('819, '746, '264, '568, '044, '436, '772, '763, '807, '385) were asserted — not necessarily because '410 itself was.
2. The '410 patent issued August 23, 2011, after most of the early Neology complaints were drafted, and the publicly available records I retrieved from those cases name the sibling patents ('819, '746, '264), not '410. I could not confirm that '410 was ever added by amendment.

Per your instruction, I am not auto-correcting or inferring; where a record did not literally name 8,004,410, I say so.

1. Cases confirmed to assert US 8,004,410

2. Closely related litigation in the same family (context only — '410 NOT confirmed as an asserted patent)

These matters are included because the patents asserted are direct family members of the '410 patent (its parent, its sibling continuations, or the same priority chain). Do not treat these as '410 cases.

Related but not a Neology assertion: in [plaintiff] v. SANDAG and Neology, S.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-00738, Neology is a defendant, accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 11,270,182 and a '578 patent in connection with the FasTrak Flex transponder. That case is unrelated to the '410 patent.

3. Post-grant / appellate proceedings touching the family

• IPR2015-00808, -00814, -00815, -00818, -00819, -00823, -00824 (PTAB) — filed by the Kapsch defendants against Neology patents 6,229,443; 6,690,264; 8,237,568; 8,325,044; 8,587,436; 7,119,664. Sibling patents of '410, but not '410.
• Federal Circuit / Supreme Court: a certiorari appendix was filed at Supreme Court No. 19-445 in a matter arising from an ITC determination involving the '436 and '044 patents and the ISO 18000-6C protocol. Again, family members, not '410.

4. What this means and what I recommend verifying

• If you need a litigation opinion on the '410 patent specifically, the operative question is whether '410 was ever pleaded in the Federal Signal, Kapsch, or Confidex matters by amendment (all of those complaints were amended at least once). Public summaries frequently list only a subset of asserted patents.
• Recommended direct checks, since I could not complete them:
  1. Darts-IP family 30115697 (linked from the Google Patents '410 page) — family-level litigation mapping.
  2. PACER / CourtListener dockets for D. Del. 1:11-cv-00672, D. Del. 13-cv-02052, and the D. Del. Confidex case — pull the operative complaints and any amended pleadings and read the patent list.
  3. USITC EDIS for 337-TA-876 — the complaint and notice of investigation enumerate patents.
  4. Unified Patents litigation caselist (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) and PTAB docket search on application 12/688,666.
  5. USPTO PatentCenter / Assignment for the '410 record (current assignee per Google Patents: Mobility IP Holdings Inc, reassigned from Neology, Inc. on Feb. 11, 2026).

If you authorize live PACER/USITC pulls, I can retrieve the operative complaints and confirm or exclude '410 definitively.

Caveat: The '410 patent's legal status is listed as Expired – Lifetime, with anticipated expiration July 9, 2023, so any pending assertion would be limited to pre-expiration damages plus back damages, not ongoing injunctive relief.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 8,004,410 ("System and method for providing secure identification solutions")

Bottom line up front: there are no AIA trial proceedings on US 8,004,410 itself. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal block supplied with this task returns zero AIA trial proceedings, and my independent web verification (PTAB decision mirrors, docket aggregators, the Neology/Kapsch record, ITC and Federal Circuit materials) surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM ever captioned against the '410 patent. What the family does have is a well-documented IPR war over its siblings — which is important context, but is not a proceeding on '410, and I do not present it as one.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 8,004,410: 0 (0 active / 0 with claims cancelled / 0 with claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 with institution denied). There is therefore no IPR estoppel burden on a defendant and no invalidated claim to disarm — but the patent's legal status ("Expired – Lifetime," anticipated expiration 2023-07-09, per the Google Patents legal-status data fetched 2026-09-30) means the defensive posture is not "the patent is hardened," it is "the patent is in the rear-view mirror; the live risk sits in the continuation family and in the new assignee, Mobility IP Holdings, Inc."

Proceedings on US 8,004,410

None. No § 315(b) one-year bar clock, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel, no FWD, no appellate mandate attaches to this patent.

Related AIA proceedings in the same patent family (challenges to sibling patents — NOT to US 8,004,410)

These matter because they share the '410 specification and claim family (the '410 issued 2011-08-23 from Ser. No. 12/688,666, filed 2010-01-15, a continuation of Ser. No. 11/279,912 → U.S. Pat. No. 7,671,746 → Ser. No. 10/615,026 → U.S. Pat. No. 7,081,819). Kapsch TrafficCom's February 2015 IPR barrage hit six Neology patents in this orbit; US 8,004,410 was not on the list of challenged patents in the Board's own consolidated caption (which names patents 6,229,443; 6,690,264; 8,587,436; 8,237,568; 8,325,044; and 7,119,664 — see the 2015-09-14 RPI decision, PTAB Trial Blog PDF).

IPR2015-00818 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,237,568) and IPR2015-00819 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,325,044) — Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. et al. v. Neology, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (two separate petitions; both patents are continuations in the '410 family).
• Filed: 2015-02-27 (petitions filed by Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc., Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Holding Corp., Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Technologies Holding Corp., Kapsch TrafficCom U.S. Corp., and Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corp.).
• Status: Terminated; reached Final Written Decision and was appealed. (Claim-level disposition below is reported as inferred from the appellate caption and disposition — I could not pull the FWD texts in this session; treat the inference as such.)
• Judge panel: Justin T. Arbes, Glenn J. Perry, Trevor M. Jefferson (panel on the consolidated RPI motions; the same panel presided over the February 2015 Kapsch filings).
• Petition grounds: § 103 (and § 102 sub-grounds) against the "security key" reader/transponder claims; the key reference discussed in the ITC/CAFC record is Snodgrass (arbitration number / TAG value as the claimed "security key"). I did not verify the complete ground list.
• Institution decision: instituted — trial ran to FWD (confirmed by the subsequent appeal from these two case numbers).
• Final Written Decision: Not verified at claim level in this session. What is verified: Neology was the appellant from IPR2015-00818 and IPR2015-00819, and the Federal Circuit AFFIRMED (per curiam, nonprecedential; Lourie, Clevenger, Stoll, JJ.), judgment entered 2018-06-06. An appeal by the patent owner and affirmance implies adverse FWDs (i.e., claims held unpatentable and the holding upheld). Docket: Fed. Cir. Nos. 2017-1228 and 2017-1229 — CourtListener.
• Settlement / termination: A February 2015 settlement meeting in Vienna between Smartrac/Neology and Kapsch personnel is documented (declaration of Christian Uhl and the Board's RPI decision), but no settlement of these IPRs is reflected; they were litigated to FWD and appeal.
• Appeal: Yes — 2017-1228 / 2017-1229, affirmed 2018-06-06.
• Defensive value: Entities facing these sibling patents can rely on cancelled claims and the affirmance; but this gives no estoppel or invalidity holding against '410 itself.

IPR2015-00815 — Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. et al. v. Neology, Inc. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,587,436)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (sibling patent, same family/specification).
• Filed: 2015-02-26 (per docket records).
• Status: Reported by a secondary aggregator as institution denied (decision dated 2015-09-14) — this aligns with Neology's contemporaneous public statement that the PTO had "confirmed the validity of four of the most relevant Neology patents." Flag: secondary-source data (ai-lab.exparte.com), not verified against the Board's decision document. Note this creates an internal tension with the record showing the same '436 patent was later caught up in adverse family-level rulings (the ITC found asserted '436 claims invalid for lack of written description — Fed. Cir. No. 2018-1338, decided 2019-04-19, nonprecedential).
• Judge panel: Arbes, Perry, Jefferson (same consolidated panel).
• Petition grounds / FWD / appeal: Not verified in this session.
• Defensive value: Minimal for a '410 defendant; cite only with the verification caveat above.

Also in the same February 2015 wave (all sibling patents, none is '410)

• IPR2015-00808 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,229,443), IPR2015-00814 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,690,264), IPR2015-00823 and IPR2015-00824 (both U.S. Pat. No. 7,119,664).
• The Board's 2015-09-14 decision denied Neology's motions to vacate for alleged failure to name Kapsch-Group Beteiligungs GmbH and Kapsch AG as real parties in interest — holding that corporate-group membership, shared officers/address, and consolidated financials do not establish RPI absent a compelling reason to disregard entity separateness (Taylor v. Sturgell factors). That decision is the notable procedural artifact of the campaign: source PDF.
• Related non-PTAB invalidity event worth knowing: the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-875) found asserted claims of the '044 and '436 patents (claims 13, 14, 25 of the '044 per the Federal Circuit's recitation) invalid for lack of written description under § 112 ¶ 1; the Federal Circuit affirmed (No. 2018-1338, 2019-04-19), and Neology's cert petition (No. 19-445) was filed 2019-10-01: CAFC opinion, cert petition.

Strategic summary

Claim status on '410: entirely UNTESTED. Every claim of US 8,004,410 stands as issued, unamended, and unchallenged at the PTAB. There is no FWD, no certificate cancelling claims, no adverse judgment. Conversely, there is no affirmance of validity either — the patent has never been run through an adversarial validity gauntlet, in an IPR or otherwise, as far as the public record shows. The family's cancellation story (Snodgrass-based unpatentability rulings on the '568 and '044, affirmed 2018-06-06; § 112 written-description invalidation of asserted '044/'436 claims, affirmed 2019-04-19) sits on sibling patents, and cancelled sibling claims do not cancel '410 claims.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR was ever filed against '410, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue for this patent — a current defendant can raise any prior-art ground it wants, in the PTAB or in district court, without § 315(e) exposure. The estoppel that exists runs the other way: Kapsch and its privies are estopped as to the grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised on the sibling patents they challenged (and those claims are cancelled as a practical matter). Nothing on the docket shows a defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain — the only petitioner of record in this family is Kapsch, a competitor/defendant, not a subscription-IPR aggregator. Note also that IPR estoppel is patent-specific; it does not travel from '568/'044 to '410.

The real 2026 risk is expiration, not validity. The '410's term runs from the earliest non-provisional application in the § 120 chain (Ser. No. 10/615,026, filed 2003-07-09), which is why the Google Patents legal-status data records an anticipated expiration of 2023-07-09 and a current status of "Expired – Lifetime." That has three consequences a defendant should press hard: (1) no post-expiration injunctive relief for ongoing conduct; (2) damages are cut off at the expiration date and, independently, by the § 286 six-year lookback from the filing of any new complaint; and (3) an IPR on an expired patent is legally possible but strategically diminished (no claim amendment, limited practical upside versus a district-court § 282 challenge). The pattern signal to watch is the 2026-02-11 assignment of the family from Neology, Inc. to MOBILITY IP HOLDINGS, INC. — a monetization-entity chain. Expect assertion activity, if any, to target the later-issued family members and the more recent continuations rather than an expired '410, but confirm which patent number is actually in the demand letter before spending a dollar on invalidity work.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the patent and term directly. Pull the '410 file wrapper in USPTO PatentCenter and confirm the expiration date, any PTA, and maintenance-fee status. The Google Patents legal-status field is an assumption in its own terms; do not rely on it alone for a statute-of-limitations or damages-cutoff argument. (Google Patents family/status page)
2. If a demand letter or complaint cites US 8,004,410 specifically: there are no cancelled claims to cite back at them. Your defenses are (a) expiration (2023-07-09) — no prospective relief, damages window closed; (b) § 286 six-year damages lookback; (c) an invalidity attack on the merits, for which the family record is a gift — the ITC and Federal Circuit already held that the shared 2003 specification does not provide written-description support for certain family claims, and the PTAB's Snodgrass-based "security key" findings on the '044 are on the public record.
3. If the letter cites a sibling instead (e.g., '568, '044, '436): those claims are dead or narrowed — quote the Federal Circuit's affirmance in Nos. 2017-1228/1229 (2018-06-06, CourtListener) and the § 112 affirmance in No. 2018-1338 (2019-04-19). Any infringement theory built on cancelled family claims is a Rule 11 problem.
4. Before filing anything, run the E2E/PTAB search yourself. My verification was web-based; the ODP structured block and search results are consistent (zero proceedings on '410), but a petition filed in the last few months and not yet indexed would not appear. A direct PTAB E2E "Patent Number 8004410" search takes two minutes and closes that gap.
5. No statutory trial milestones to track — there is no institution deadline, no oral hearing, and no FWD due date, because there is no proceeding. The absence over 14+ years of assertion activity is itself the signal: '410's claims were never the ones worth shooting at, which strongly suggests the family's monetizable claims (and the ones you will be sued on) live elsewhere in the continuation chain now held by Mobility IP Holdings.

Verification caveats (per operating rules): (i) Zero PTAB proceedings on '410 is stated from the structured ODP block plus negative search results — I could not query E2E directly. (ii) Claim-level outcomes for IPR2015-00818/-00819 are inferred from the Federal Circuit caption (Neology as appellant) and affirmance, not read from the FWDs. (iii) The "institution denied" status for IPR2015-00815 comes from a secondary aggregator and is flagged accordingly. (iv) No claim text of the '410 was retrieved in this session, so I do not opine on whether its claims contain the "security key" limitation that drove the sibling rulings.

I'll research the assignment record for US 8004410 across USPTO Assignment Center, Google Patents legal events, and NPE/litigation directories.

Strong leads. Let me dig into the specific assignment records, reel/frame numbers, and whether US 8,004,410 itself is being asserted.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 8,004,410 B2

Analyst note on source access (read first). I was able to retrieve the Google Patents legal-events layer for US 8,004,410 and corroborating litigation/corporate records, but I could not retrieve the underlying USPTO Assignment Center records themselves — i.e. no reel/frame numbers and no correspondent-of-record (recording attorney) data were returned by any source I could reach. Those fields are therefore reported below as NOT RETRIEVED, not guessed. Every reel/frame-style citation you asked for would have to be pulled directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 8004410) or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Do not treat the reconstituted chain below as a substitute for the recorded reel/frame images.

Inventors

Employee/departure caveat: I found no evidence regarding inventor departure dates from the original assignee, and the US 12/688,666 filing (2010-01-15) is a continuation, so "employer at time of filing" is ambiguous — the inventive work dates to the 2002 priority year, while the filing was made by Neology, Inc. I cannot confirm either inventor's employer as of 2010 with high confidence.

Unusual pattern worth flagging (documented, not inferred): both inventors' assignments to BNC IP Switzerland GmbH were not recorded until 2014-05-13 — roughly twelve years after the 2002 priority date and four years after the 2010 filing. A late, same-day, family-wide chain-of-title cleanup is a classic precursor to a portfolio sale; the actual sale came ~12 years later in 2026.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Neology, Inc. (Google Patents "Original Assignee"; application filed by Neology Inc on 2010-01-15).
• Line of business: operating RFID company — passive UHF RFID tags, readers and end-to-end tolling/vehicle-registration systems ("Sahara" reader systems; "LP", "NTS", "On/Off" and "DI" tag lines). Per the TransCore v. Neology complaint, Neology began operations on or about January 1, 2005, having succeeded Single Chip Systems Corporation (SCS) and Neology S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico).
• Shipped a product embodying the claims? Yes — this is well documented. In ITC Investigation 337-TA-979 the ALJ found that Neology's domestic-industry products practiced claims of the sibling '044 and '436 patents (same family, same specification as the '410), and Neology's tags were the accused/domestic-industry articles in D. Del. C.A. No. 11-672 (Neology v. Sirit/TransCore/Kapsch) and IPR2015-00808/00814/00815 before the PTAB.
• Current status: Neology remained an operating company as late as the 2016–17 ITC matter (Poway, California) and was still assignee of record until the 2026 transfer. Its financial trajectory was weak — the D. Del. opinion records layoffs, a claimed ~$100M cumulative investment, and inability to bid below $1.25/tag against Sirit/TransCore/Kapsch. I found no Chapter 7/11 filing. Note that a separate 2014-05-13 assignment shows BNC IP Switzerland GmbH as an intermediate holder, and a 2014-05-13 reassignment of the BNC entity's rights to NEOLOGY, INC. — i.e. Neology consolidated the Swiss-held rights to itself in 2014.

Assignment timeline

Chronology is limited to what the sources actually document. Google Patents reports processing/recording dates, not execution dates; execution dates and reel/frame numbers were not retrievable.

1. Execution date not retrievable / recorded 2014-05-13 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

   • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → IP-holding entity; chain-of-title cleanup)
   • Assignor: Manfred Rietzler; Francisco Martinez de Velasco Cortina
   • Assignee: BNC IP Switzerland GmbH
   • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED (recurrence across the chain therefore cannot be assessed)
   • Context: Curative/cleanup assignment perfecting the Swiss entity's chain of title long after the 2002 priority filing.

2. Execution date not retrievable / recorded 2014-05-13 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

   • Conveyance: Assignment (internal reorg / consolidation)
   • Assignor: BNC IP Switzerland GmbH
   • Assignee: NEOLOGY, INC.
   • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
   • Context: Same-day internal consolidation of the Swiss-held rights into the US operating company.

3. Execution date not retrievable / recorded 2026-02-11 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

   • Conveyance: Assignment — recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST"
   • Assignor: NEOLOGY, INC.
   • Assignee: MOBILITY IP HOLDINGS, INC.
   • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
   • Context: Transfer-to-asserter — sale of the Neology RFID/secure-ID portfolio to a non-practicing assertion vehicle. Sixteen days later the same portfolio was in suit (see §5).

No record found of any license, security agreement, release, merger, or change-of-name conveyance on this patent.

Corroborating litigation context for the family (not assignments, but relevant to the chain):

• Neology, Inc. v. Sirit/TransCore/Kapsch, D. Del. 11-672 (filed July 2011) — original operating-company assertion.
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-979 (instituted 2016-01-11; final ID 2017-06-22, no violation) — patents '044, '664, '436.
• IPR2015-00815 on US 8,587,436, petitioners Kapsch TrafficCom entities — sibling patent.
• Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung, E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00157 (filed 2026-02-27) — asserts '345, '924, '772, '807, '513, '412, '187. Complaint states: "Neology eventually assigned these patents to Mobility IP."
• Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. v. Apple Inc., W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00075 (filed 2026-03-04) — asserts '345 and '924.
• Mobility IP Holding, LLC v. Para Mobility PTY LTD, N.D.N.Y. 3:26-cv-01456 (filed 2026-07-28) — asserts 9,863,577 and 10,125,920 (note the different capitalization: "Holding, LLC" vs "Holdings, Inc." — two names appear in the docket record and I cannot confirm whether they are the same or affiliated entities).

Important: US 8,004,410 is not among the patents named in any of the 2026 Mobility IP complaints I located. It sits in the same continuation family as asserted siblings '772 and '807, so it was almost certainly conveyed in the same transaction, but it has not yet been pleaded.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8004410
    2002 : Priority application filed
    2010 : Continuation filed by Neology Inc
    2011 : Patent issued to Neology Inc
    2014 : Inventors assign to BNC IP Switzerland
         : BNC IP Switzerland assigns to Neology
    2026 : Neology assigns portfolio to Mobility IP
         : Mobility IP sues Apple and Samsung

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (strong), with a documentation gap.
The patent moved from an operating RFID manufacturer (Neology, Inc.) to Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. by the 2026-02-11 recorded assignment. The concrete tell is not the name suffix but conduct: Mobility IP's entire observable activity is patent assertion — three suits in 2026 alone (Samsung, 2:26-cv-00157, filed 2026-02-27; Apple, 7:26-cv-00075, filed 2026-03-04; Para Mobility, 3:26-cv-01456, filed 2026-07-28). No product, no website, no distribution is anywhere in the record. Caveat: I could not verify the registered-agent address or LLC/single-member status, because the recording data (which carries the address of record) was not retrievable. The "registered-agent address" half of this signal is unverified.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (moderate).
Mobility IP Holdings does not appear on the enumerated list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). However it independently surfaces in 2026 litigation trackers as a multi-defendant, serial plaintiff (Apple, Samsung, Para Mobility within five months), which satisfies the "entity surfaced as a high-frequency plaintiff" limb on the evidence I have. I did not find a Unified Patents or RPX directory entry naming it; that check is unresolved.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — CANNOT BE ASSESSED. The correspondent of record was not retrievable for any of the three 2026/2014 events. I will not manufacture a name. Two adjacent observations, offered deliberately as non-findings on this signal: (a) the same terms "Mobility IP Holding, LLC" and "Mobility IP Holdings, Inc." appear as plaintiffs across venues; (b) litigation counsel Howard Neil Wisnia and James R. Muldoon appear as counsel for the Mobility IP plaintiffs (docket appearances, not assignment correspondents). Neither substitutes for a recurring recording attorney, which is the actual signal.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
The chain is three links over ~24 years, not several LLCs in <24 months: inventors → BNC IP Switzerland → Neology (both 2014-05-13) → Mobility IP (2026-02-11). The two same-day 2014-05-13 recordings are a same-day cleanup/consolidation, not a cascade of unrelated shells. No shared-correspondent evidence exists to test common principals.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT at portfolio level; UNRESOLVED for this patent.
Recorded assignment to Mobility IP on 2026-02-11; first campaign suits filed 2026-02-27 (Samsung) and 2026-03-04 (Apple) — 16 and 21 days later, comfortably inside the six-month window. But no complaint naming US 8,004,410 has been located, so the technically correct call for this specific patent is unclear / not yet consummated; the portfolio-level answer is an emphatic yes.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 proceeding involving Neology, Inc. was found. The 2026 transfer looks like a negotiated portfolio monetization, not a court-supervised sale. (Neology's documented distress — layoffs, an untenable $1.25/tag price point, ~$100M sunk investment per the D. Del. record — is commercial weakness, not bankruptcy.)

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR.
The asserted siblings ('772, '807, '513, '412, '187) trace to Neology, which is the correct shape for privateering — but the 2026 targets (Apple, Samsung) are not Neology's tolling-market competitors (those were Sirit, TransCore, Kapsch, Star Systems), which cuts against a "sue-my-rival-for-me" reading. Neology was privately held, so no 10-K/8-K exists to show whether Neology retained a license-back, equity stake, or revenue share. Patent Progress/EFF coverage of this transfer was not located.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at Mobility IP Holdings, Inc., an asserting entity with three live 2026 suits. No RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN link anywhere in the chain. The patent is not neutralized.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals are concretely documented. First, shell/assertion-vehicle transfer: the recorded 2026-02-11 assignment moved the patent from Neology, Inc. — an operating RFID manufacturer whose own tags and readers were adjudicated domestic-industry products in ITC 337-TA-979 — to Mobility IP Holdings, Inc., an entity whose only documented activity is suing Apple (7:26-cv-00075, 2026-03-04), Samsung (2:26-cv-00157, 2026-02-27) and Para Mobility (3:26-cv-01456, 2026-07-28). Second, pre-litigation transfer timing: the first campaign suits landed 16 and 21 days after the recorded assignment. The prior 2014-05-13 inventor → BNC IP Switzerland GmbH → Neology, Inc. recordings are chain-of-title cleanup, not evidence of a cascade.

Caveats you should carry forward: US 8,004,410 is not itself named in any 2026 complaint I could find; the reel/frame numbers and the recording correspondents were not retrievable from my sources, so signal #3 is genuinely unassessed rather than negative; and the "registered-agent / single-member LLC" half of signal #1 is unverified.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 8004410; the legacy interface is https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Source page for the events cited above: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8004410/en

I'll research US 8004410 and its prior art citations. Let me start with searches.

Let me look for the specific patent citation list and front-page references.

Let me pull the front-page reference lists from alternative sources.

US 8004410 — Prior-Art Review

Important scope note on what I was able to retrieve

I ran targeted searches against Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Justia, EPO Global Patent Index, and USPTO-linked sources for the literal patent number 8004410. Before answering, three honest limitations must be flagged, because they materially affect the reliability of any § 102 mapping:

1. The definitive USPTO front-page "References Cited" list for US 8,004,410 was not returned by the searches. The results returned the patent's bibliographic data, description, classifications, family members and forward citations, but not the examiner's cited U.S. patent documents. I will not invent that list.
2. The authoritative full text you supplied is truncated — it ends mid-sentence at "III. RF Identification Mechanism and Method of Use" and does not include the patent's actual claims. Because § 102 anticipation is claim-by-claim, I can only map references to claim concepts inferred from the abstract and the family's claim language, not to verified claim numbers of 8,004,410.
3. Do not confuse "cited by" with "cited in." Many references surfaced (e.g., US 8,041,815; US 8,126,449; US 8,401,539; US 8,548,927; US 2010/0094754; US 2010/0095130) are forward citations that post-date 8,004,410's 2002 priority and therefore are not prior art to it.

Given the strict bar against fabrication, I have separated what is verified from what is inferred, and I have not attributed references to specific claim numbers where the claim text is unavailable.

1. Verified bibliographic facts for US 8,004,410 (literal, from the supplied authoritative text)

Priority chain (verified from the "Related Applications" section): 12/688,666 → continuation of 11/279,912 (now US 7,671,746) → continuation of 10/615,026 (now US 7,081,819) → provisional 60/394,241 (2002-07-09).

Subject matter (verified): An RF device (chip + antenna) embedded in/on an identification mechanism (card, sticker, license plate, passport, cellular phone), with a hardware cryptographic block, security-management unit, EEPROM memory, and an RF reader/writer — used for vehicle registration, passports, border control, RF cell-phone payments/POS, software-download licensing, VPN transport, and airport security.

2. References cited by the patent itself (self-identified, verified from the spec)

These are "incorporated by reference," not examiner citations. They are same-family or same-applicant documents and therefore are not § 102 prior art against 8,004,410 — they are part of the same disclosure lineage:

§ 102 conclusion: None of these can anticipate 8,004,410 — documents incorporated into a parent application that share the same inventive entity/disclosure are not "prior art" to a continuation. They are relevant only as support for written-description/enablement.

3. Closest prior art identified in the patent family's search report (verified)

The searches surfaced the EPO search report for family member EP 3 223 186 A1 (a later family continuation), which classifies the following as the closest art for the same disclosure:

Notes on each, with explicit confidence levels:

• WO 98/43104 A2 (Price) — published 1998-10-01, well before the 2002-07-09 priority. The family's search report flags it with the strongest category, so it is the single most likely § 102 reference. However, I did not retrieve its specification, so I cannot responsibly state which specific claim element it discloses. I can only say it is directed to the same general area (wireless/RF identification and authentication of items/persons) and is the closest candidate for a § 102 anticipation attack on the broadest RF-device-plus-identification-mechanism claim.
• DE 10042805 A1 (Bundesdruckerei) — published 2002-03-14. Bundesdruckerei is the German security-document printer; this is consistent with a security-document/data-carrier having an integrated chip. Because its publication (2002-03-14) precedes the 2002-07-09 priority by ~4 months, it can only qualify under § 102(a)/(e)-type theories depending on the critical date selected; it is not cleanly § 102(b) relative to the provisional but may be relative to the 2003-07-09 non-provisional (§ 120 benefit). It is flagged "A" (background), not anticipation-grade.
• US 6,025,784 A (Mish) — published 2000-02-15, more than one year before the earliest U.S. non-provisional filing, so it is facially available as § 102(b) art. It is categorized "A" (background), suggesting the examiner did not treat it as anticipatory.

Caveat: These three references come from the EP search report of a family member, not from the USPTO front page of 8,004,410 itself. They are strong, dated candidates, but I cannot certify that the USPTO examiner cited them against 8,004,410 specifically.

4. Forward citations (explicitly NOT prior art to 8,004,410)

The searches returned many patents that cite 8,004,410. All of the following post-date the 2002 priority and therefore cannot be § 102 prior art to it: US 8,041,815 (Bahl, 2011); US 8,126,449 (Beenau, 2012); US 8,237,568; US 8,325,044; US 8,401,539 (Beenau, 2013); US 8,548,927 (Beenau, 2013); US 8,587,436; US 8,847,763; US 9,922,217; and publications US 2005/0149764, US 2010/0094754, US 2010/0095130. I list these only to prevent them being mistaken for prior art.

5. § 102 anticipation analysis (concept-level, with confidence limits)

Because the claim text of 8,004,410 is not in the supplied authoritative material, I map to the claim concepts evident from the abstract and from the family's claim 1 (as reproduced in the EP 3 223 186 abstract): a system for verifying vehicle registration information comprising a license plate, an RF device with antenna and chip, a memory storing a security key and vehicle identification information, and a processor that compares a received security key to the stored key and grants RF-reader access to the vehicle identification information.

I am not able to state with confidence that any one reference anticipates a specific claim of 8,004,410, because:

• the claim set was not provided;
• I could not retrieve the front-page references-cited list or the specification text of WO 98/43104 / DE 10042805 / US 6,025,784;
• anticipation requires every element in a single reference, which cannot be assessed without that text.

Under the strict accuracy rule you set, I will not fabricate element-by-element § 102 charts.

6. What I would do next to complete a defensible § 102 chart

1. Pull the USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier file wrapper for 12/688,666 to obtain the examiner's actual "References Cited" front page and any PTO-892 forms.
2. Retrieve the full specifications of WO 98/43104 A2, DE 10042805 A1, and US 6,025,784 A and map them element-by-element.
3. Obtain the granted claims of 8,004,410 (absent from the supplied text) to anchor the analysis to claim numbers.
4. Review the litigation record — this family was asserted in Neology, Inc. v. Kapsch TrafficCom (D. Del., No. 1:11-cv-00672-LPS-MPT), and an IPR was filed against sibling US 8,237,568 (Feb. 2015) — since the invalidity contentions and IPR petitions there contain curated prior-art sets for the same disclosure.

Bottom line

• Verified: US 8,004,410's bibliographic data, priority chain, and self-referenced family documents (which are not prior art).
• Strongly indicated prior art (but from a family-member EP search report, not the 8,004,410 front page): WO 98/43104 A2 (Price, 1998-10-01, closest), DE 10042805 A1 (Bundesdruckerei, 2002-03-14), US 6,025,784 A (Mish, 2000-02-15).
• Not prior art: all forward citations listed in § 4.
• Could not verify: the precise USPTO-cited reference list and the literal claim language necessary for a numbered § 102 anticipation chart. I am flagging this rather than guessing.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual claim set and cited prior art, since the fetched page text omitted the claims and the "Prior Art" listing.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,004,410 ("System and Method for Providing Secure Identification Solutions")

0. Sourcing note (important — read first)

Two things must be flagged before any § 103 opinion is offered, because they affect how much confidence any statement below can carry:

1. The authoritative page text supplied does not contain the claim set. The fetched Google Patents record (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8004410](/patent/US8004410)/en) reproduces the abstract, the "Definitions" extract, the Description of the Invention, and the classification/landscape data, but the Claims section is truncated at column "III. RF Identification Mechanism and Method of Use …including, but not limited to: a license,". My open-web searches did not return the verbatim claim text of the '410 either (searches returned family members' claims — the '044 and '436 — instead).
2. The authoritative page text also does not contain a "Prior Art" citation list. The fetch contains no "References Cited," "Similar Documents," or "Cited By" table. Whatever prior-art list appears on the live page (Prior art keywords: information, radio frequency, vehicle, security, identification is the only artifact the mirror preserved) was not captured. I therefore cannot claim to be "using the results from the Prior Art section of this page" in the literal sense; that section is not in the record I was given.

Because the rule here is not to fabricate identifiers or claim language, I have grounded the analysis below in (a) the '410 specification that is in the authoritative text, (b) the documented claims of its common-specification family members ('819, '746, '044, '436), which are quoted verbatim in court and agency records, and (c) the prior art actually named in that same record. Every inference is labeled.

1. What the '410 actually is, on the record

The specification states at the outset:

"This application is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/279,912 filed on Apr. 17, 2006, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,671,746, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/615,026 filed on Jul. 9, 2003, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,081,819…"

And the '410 is in the same family as US 8,237,568, 8,325,044, 8,587,436, 8,766,772, 8,833,807, etc. (all listed on the authoritative page as priority-linked filings). The ITC and Federal Circuit record confirms the family shares a common specification: "[s]ince the '044 (JX‑1), '436 (JX‑2), and '819 (JX‑29) patents all share a common specification…" (USITC appendix, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-445/[117674](/patent/117674)/20191001160950270_Joshi.Neology.Appendix.Final.ForFiling.pdf).

Inference (flagged): because the '410 claims the same 2002 priority date and the same specification, its claims are necessarily drawn to subject matter described within that common disclosure — RF device + identification mechanism + RF reader/writer, per the '410 abstract verbatim: "a radio frequency (RF) identification device, an identification mechanism (e.g., a card, sticker), and an RF reader." The page's own "prior art keywords" artifact (information, radio frequency, vehicle, security, identification) is consistent with that scope.

Documented family claim scope (verbatim from the ITC record — usable as a proxy, not as the '410's own claims):

• '044 claim 10 (toll system): a central database configured to "store toll accounts, receive identifiers related to toll accounts, and compare the received identifiers… to determine if a match exists"; an RFID reader "configured to: send a first communication to a RFID transponder… send a second communication… that includes a security key for validation by the RFID transponder, receive at least the identifier… as a result of validation of the security key, and transmit the identifier to the central database."
• '436 claim 1 (RFID reader): the same first/second/third-communication sequence with "security key" and "second security key," plus "transmit the identifier to a central database."
• '746 claims 16–17 and '819 claim 1 were asserted in Neology, Inc. v. Federal Signal Corp., C.A. 1:11‑cv‑00672‑LPS (D. Del.), per the Goldberg declaration (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2015-00815/…/Exhibit-1013…pdf).

2. Legal framework applied

Pre-AIA § 103(a) with the Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) factors, as reworked by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007):

• A claimed combination may be obvious where each element was known, each performs only its established function, and the combination yields no more than predictable results (KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17).
• The motivation to combine need not be found in the references themselves; it may come from "the nature of the problem to be solved, the ordinary skill and common sense of the artisan," market demand, or a design incentive (KSR; MPEP 2144.01).
• The references must be analogous art — here, trivially so: all candidates are in the RFID/automatic-vehicle-identification and secure-document field as of 2002.
• For a crowded, mature, standards-driven art (RFID transponders), "obvious to try" can suffice where there is "a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions" (KSR).

3. Prior art references available to a § 103 challenge

These are the references actually named in the litigation/PTAB record for this family, which is the best-grounded set available to me:

Note: I could not verify the '410's own front-page "References Cited" list, so I am deliberately not asserting any specific U.S. patent numbers as "cited against the '410."

4. Obviousness grounds — element-by-element

Assuming (as the family record supports) that the '410 claims cover: (a) an RF device = chip + RF antenna; (b) an identification mechanism (card, sticker, license plate, passport) carrying the RF device; (c) an RF reader/writer that contactlessly reads/writes the identification information; (d) storage of identification information (biometric and/or vehicle) on the chip; (e) cryptographic/security management gating access to the chip memory; (f) comparison of read data against a second source or a central database.

Ground 1 — 6C/Gen2 Standard (or Snodgrass) in view of RFID Handbook (Finkenzeller)

• The 6C Standard / Snodgrass supply (a), (b), (c), and (f): a reader/antenna, a transponder whose memory contents include an identifier, the identifier being returned to the reader, and (in the tolling context) the identifier being promulgated to a back-end database.
• Finkenzeller supplies (e): the RFID Handbook's chapters on cryptographic procedures describe exactly the passive-chip architecture the '410 discloses — "a security management unit… that checks and validates the cryptographic keys that will be sent to the cryptographic block… [k]eys are checked and validated to grant or deny access to the memory chip" (the '410's own spec text, reproduced in the IPR record at § II.B).
• Motivation: ISO 14443/15693 and ENV ISO 14906 already coupled RFID identification with mutual authentication; skimming/cloning of toll and access tags was a documented concern; if a 6C tag's memory can be read by any conforming interrogator, restricting access to memory that contains biometric or vehicle-registration data is the expected use of a known security technique. Under KSR this is a "known technique… improve[d] on a similar device" — the paradigm case of obviousness.

Ground 2 — Gen2/6C (or Snodgrass) in view of ENV ISO 14906

• ISO 14906 defines the EFC application interface: identifier exchange, secure application-level transactions, and the payment/account linkage for vehicles approaching roadside equipment.
• Motivation: the '410's own stated problem is fraud and counterfeiting in identification, and its stated field of use includes "toll booths" and "other vehicle control applications." Combining a standards-based EFC application layer with a standard passive tag is a mere application of a known interface to a known transponder, i.e., the "predictable variation" of KSR.

Ground 3 — 6C/Gen2 (or Snodgrass) in view of Slavin and/or Blythe

• Slavin and Blythe supply the teaching that a second, later authentication event / second key may gate a second access to tag memory, and that RFID vehicle identification is used for tolling, access control and road pricing.
• Motivation: the Federal Circuit has already construed this family's "security key" limitation at a high level of generality, and the ITC made express obviousness findings on the '044 claims 13/14 in view of Gen2/6C with Slavin and/or Blythe. If the '410 contains the parallel two-step key-exchange language (likely, given the common spec), a substantially identical motivation analysis applies: sequential access control is a recognized technique for limiting exposure of memory contents.

Ground 4 — Prior-art secure-document art in view of RFID art (for the "identification mechanism" limitations)

If the '410 claims recite an identification mechanism carrying visible/forensic security features (holograms, microprint, UV fluorescence, taggants) in addition to the RF device, then:

• Holograms, microprint, guilloche, UV fluorescent inks in identity documents and currency are decades-old (the '410 spec itself describes them as conventional).
• Motivation: the specification's own stated problem — dye-sublimation printers, color scanners, copiers and hair dryers make ordinary photo ID cards easy to counterfeit — is precisely the classic motivation to combine an RF device with existing optical/chemical security features. Combining known anti-copy features with a known RF transponder to strengthen a document is the most predictable combination imaginable.

Ground 5 — Dual-frequency / multiple-frequency transponder art

The '410 discloses (and the family claims recite) a dual-frequency RF device with a modulator, two AC/DC converters (915 MHz and 13.56 MHz), etc. HF (13.56 MHz) for short-range/high-security coupling and UHF (915 MHz) for long-range vehicle reading was standard practice in the 6C/ETC art by 2002 (the ITC record's discussion of Neology's own 6C products and multi-protocol readers is illustrative). Motivation: read-range vs. field-penetration tradeoff — expressly stated in the '410 itself, which is an admission of what the art expected.

5. Likely-dependent-claim obviousness posture

6. Where an obviousness challenge is weakest (candor section)

1. The "second security key based on information received from the RFID transponder" limitation was one of five limitations the ITC found lacking written description and the Federal Circuit affirmed (Neology, Inc. v. ITC, No. 18‑1338, http://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1338.Opinion.4-19-2019.pdf). A limitation that a court says the specification never described is a limitation a § 103 petitioner must locate precisely in the prior art — the "genus claim/functional language" problem cuts against easy reliance on a broad § 103 theory.
2. No secondary-consideration record was examined here. Neology's litigation presented evidence of commercial success and industry adoption (the Washington State DOT and Utah proceedings in Neology v. Federal Signal, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/11-672_0.pdf). Any real § 103 opinion must weigh nexus.
3. I have not seen the '410's actual claims. If its independent claims are narrower than the '044/'436 (e.g., tie the RF device to a vehicle identification number and a license plate with a specific selective-demetalization manufacturing step, as described in the '410 spec at the "Method of Making RF Registered Item" text — "antennas are produced on a demetalized or selective metalizing process… applying inks containing silver or copper"), the obviousness case must be built against that narrower manufacturing limitation specifically, and I have not verified which of those manufacturing limitations is claimed.

7. Bottom line

Most probable § 103 combination: Snodgrass or the ISO/IEC 18000‑6C ("Gen2") protocol as the primary reference (reader + passive transponder + identifier + central database), in view of the RFID Handbook / Finkenzeller for the cryptographic validation of memory access, and further in view of Slavin or Blythe where a second/derived security key is claimed. The motivation is: (i) the reference combination is entirely within one art; (ii) the '410's own stated problem (counterfeiting of identification documents and vehicle credentials) supplies the reason to add cryptographic access control to a tag; (iii) the standards-based EFC and vicinity-card arts supply the mechanics; and (iv) the result is the predictable functioning of each known element (KSR).

Confidence caveats, stated explicitly:

• I could not verify the '410's verbatim claim language, and the "Prior Art" section referenced in the prompt was not present in the authoritative page text I was given. The combinations above are therefore built from the family's shared specification and the prior art named in the '044/'436 and '819/'746 litigation records — a defensible but proxy-based analysis.
• I have treated "Snodgrass," "Slavin," and "Blythe" literally as the source documents so named in the ITC/PTAB record and have not substituted or guessed at their underlying patent numbers.
• For a filing-ready opinion, the '410 claim set, its IDS/front-page references, and the file wrapper should be pulled directly from USPTO PatentCenter (linked on the authoritative page: "USPTO PatentCenter").