US 8766772

I'll search for this specific patent across multiple sources.

Let me search for the specific claims and any 2026 litigation/appeal activity.

Let me search for the actual granted claims and any 2026 litigation activity.

US Patent 8,766,772 — Summary

Verification note: I was unable to access USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier or the CAFC docket system directly in this session; the below is assembled from Google Patents' full-text record for US8766772 (which you supplied), the pre-grant publication US 2014/0022056 A1 as mirrored on Justia, and search results. Where I could not verify something authoritatively, I flag it.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim): "The present invention provides a method and system for verifying and tracking transactional 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."

Family / continuity

The '772 patent shares a common specification with the Neology "security patents" family — notably US 8,325,044 and US 8,587,436 (both titled "System and Method for Providing Secure Identification Solutions"), which were litigated in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1005 against Kapsch and later appealed (the Supreme Court appendix in Neology v. ITC, No. 19-445, reproduces the '044 and '436 claim sets). The Google Patents record shows the '772 as a parent/priority vehicle for later continuations: US 14/321,781 (→ US 10,719,824 B2), US 14/639,034 (→ US 10,706,412 B2), US 14/724,593 (→ US 10,726,414 B2), and US 16/940,196 (US 2020/0356988 A1). Caution: the family trees in these records across the '044/'436/'772 patents reflect a tangled 2002–2013 continuation chain; I have not independently reconstructed the exact priority chain.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The '772 has three independent claims: 1, 9, and 15, all directed to a mobile device (e.g., a cellphone/smartphone/tablet) that stores transaction and biometric data on an RFID chip and releases it in response to a wireless access request.

Claim 1 — Mobile device with security-key gating

• A biometric input device (e.g., fingerprint scanner) that receives biometric data.
• An RF antenna plus chip, the chip having memory storing (a) a security key, (b) transaction information, and (c) biometric information identifying the individual associated with the transaction.
• A processor that controls memory access based on a security key. It: receives a wireless signal containing an access request and a security key; compares the received key to the stored key; and provides the transaction information only when the keys match.
• In plain terms: an RFID chip in a phone that will only hand over your stored transaction data if the inquiring reader presents a matching cryptographic key.

Claim 9 — Mobile device with biometric-match gating (no security-key comparison step)

• Same general architecture: biometric input device, RF antenna, chip with memory storing transaction information and biometric information for identifying the individual.
• Here the processor: receives a wireless signal requesting access to and retrieval of the transaction information; receives biometric information from the biometric input device; compares it to the stored biometric information; and provides the transaction information when the biometrics match.
• In plain terms: the transaction data is released on a successful local one-to-one biometric match, rather than on a security-key comparison (as in claim 1). Dependent claims 10–14 add refinements (cellphone/smartphone/tablet; fingerprint scanner; passing the biometric data along with the transaction data; account information; credit card information).

Claim 15 — Cellular telephone with fingerprint scanner

• A cellular telephone with a fingerprint scanner that receives fingerprint information, plus the memory storing transaction information and fingerprint information, and a processor coupled to both.

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: The full text of claim 15 (and the tail of claim 9) was truncated in the available source. Claim 15's preamble and its dependent claims 16–18 (providing the received/stored fingerprint information with the transaction information; transaction information being account information; transaction information being credit card information) are clear, but the middle processor limitations of claim 15 are not fully reproduced. A definitive reading requires the issued patent's claim 15 from the USPTO full-text or the printed patent.

General characterization of the claim set: All three independent claims are apparatus claims tied to a mobile/handheld device (mobile device, cellular telephone) combining an RF chip with a biometric sensor, and the claimed advance lies in the conditional release of stored transaction data — either upon RF-transmitted security-key validation (claim 1) or upon local biometric match (claim 9/15).

2026 litigation and Federal Circuit status

• The Google Patents family record for US8766772 carries a "Family has litigation" flag listing two 2026 district-court filings (not CAFC): Texas Western District Court case 7:26-cv-00075 and Texas Eastern District Court case 2:26-cv-00157, plus a "first worldwide family litigation filed" entry via Darts-ip (family 30115697). Consistent with this, the assignment to Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. was recorded February 11, 2026, suggesting a recent assertion campaign.
• However, I did not find any Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket, appeal, or opinion specifically involving US 8,766,772. The 2026 CAFC activity my searches surfaced (e.g., Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Nos. 2024-2223 et al., decided May 11, 2026) concerns unrelated patents. The well-known Neology appellate history — ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1005 and the Neology v. ITC appeal reproduced in the Supreme Court appendix for No. 19-445 — involved the '044 and '436 patents, not the '772.
• Important caveat: the '772 is listed as expired (anticipated expiration July 9, 2023). Any 2026 suit would therefore be for past damages within the limitations period rather than ongoing infringement relief. I cannot confirm the parties, asserted claims, or subject matter of the two 2026 Texas cases from the sources available to me; that would require pulling the complaints from PACER/Docket Alarm.

If you need, I can attempt a further targeted pull of the two 2026 Texas complaints or the issued claim 15 text from a USPTO full-text mirror — say the word and I'll run those searches.

I'll run targeted searches for litigation involving US 8,766,772 specifically.

The generic searches returned mostly noise. Let me target the specific case numbers and parties.

Litigation involving US Patent 8,766,772

Bottom line: I found two known litigations that expressly assert US 8,766,772. Both were filed in 2026 by Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. (the entity to which the patent was assigned in February 2026), and both are still pending. I found no evidence of any earlier litigation asserting the '772 (the well-known Neology appellate history involved the '044 and '436 patents, not the '772). I also found no PTAB/IPR record for the '772 in the sources searched — flagged as low-confidence because I could not query PTAB directly.

⚠️ Date inconsistency — please note

The task instruction says "Current Date: April 26, 2026," but my system date is 2026-09-19, and the docket records retrieved include entries dated June 23–24, 2026. I have therefore reported the docket as of its latest retrieved entry rather than freezing at April 26, 2026. Flagging this because it materially affects the "current status" column.

Case 1 — Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)

Accused products/functionality: Apple Pay, iPhones (iPhone XR onward), Apple Watch (Series 5 and later), and various iPads — the complaint alleges a secure element (storing a "Device Account Number"), biometric authentication (Touch ID/Face ID), and an NFC radio operative to transmit EMV dynamic cryptograms to NFC POS terminals.

Patents asserted in the complaint (per the retrieved complaint analysis): U.S. 8,151,345 (independent claim 23 charted); U.S. 8,548,924 (independent claim 60 charted); and US 8,766,772, among others listed in the family.

Sources: Docket Alarm case listing (7:26-cv-00075, W.D. Tex., Mar. 4, 2026); Justia Dockets (Texas § 830 browse; W.D. Tex. IP dockets); Patexia case table; Ex Parte AI-lab case page and complaint analysis (claim charts for the '345 and '924 patents).

Case 2 — Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. et al. v. [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.)

Patents asserted (seven total, per the complaint): U.S. 8,151,345; 8,548,924; 8,766,772; 8,933,807; 10,235,513; 10,706,412; 10,762,187 — all described as formerly Neology, Inc. patents now held by Mobility IP Holdings.

Accused products: Samsung Pay / Samsung Wallet functionality across Galaxy A and S series, Note series, XCover, Z Fold, Z Flip, Galaxy Watch, and Galaxy Tab devices (complaint uses the Galaxy S23 Ultra as an example). The theory invokes an embedded secure element (eSE) storing a tokenized credential, ISO 7816-4 secure-element interrogation, and NFC transmission to a POS terminal to complete the transaction.

Sources: DocketUpdate E.D. Tex. mirror docket for 2:26-cv-00157 (docket entries through 6/24/2026); Ex Parte AI-lab case page; SeoulWire report (Feb. 27, 2026, Marshall Division filing, listing the seven patents including 8,766,772).

Related status facts (grounding)

• Assignment: The Google Patents record (supplied in the earlier section) lists an assignment of assignor's interest from Neology, Inc. to Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. recorded February 11, 2026 — i.e., roughly two to three weeks before the two suits were filed. This is consistent with a coordinated assertion campaign.
• Family-level litigation flag: Google Patents' "Family has litigation" entry lists West Texas 7:26-cv-00075 and East Texas 2:26-cv-00157 (the two cases above), plus a Darts-ip "first worldwide family litigation filed" record for family 30115697 (a family-level / worldwide entry, not a separate U.S. case).
• Patent term: The '772 is listed as Expired – Lifetime, with anticipated expiration July 9, 2023. Any recovery in the 2026 suits would therefore be limited to past damages within the § 286 six-year limitations window (i.e., conduct on or after roughly 2020), not ongoing injunctive relief. This is my legal characterization, not a docket finding.

What I could not confirm

• No pre-2026 litigation asserting the '772 appeared in any search. I checked for Neology-era suits and found only the family-level references; the ITC/CAFC history (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1005; Neology v. ITC, No. 19-445) involved the '044 and '436 patents.
• No CAFC appeal involving the '772 was found. Both 2026 cases are trial-level and pending, so no appeal would yet be ripe.
• No PTAB proceeding for the '772 was surfaced; I did not have direct PTAB/PATENTSCOPE access, so treat this as unverified rather than as a negative finding.
• I could not access PACER or the Unified Patents litigation caselist directly. The case data above comes from Docket Alarm, Justia Dockets, Patexia, Ex Parte's AI-lab docket pages, a DocketUpdate E.D. Tex. mirror, and a Korean press report. Party identification in the Samsung caption ("Mobility IP et al."), the asserted-claim subsets actually elected in each case, and the full list of patents-in-suit for the Apple case (I only saw explicit claim charts for the '345 and '924) should be confirmed against the complaints themselves on PACER/Docket Alarm.

I'll research the PTAB proceeding on this patent.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 8,766,772

Sourcing note (read first). The proceedings list below is taken verbatim from the structured USPTO Open Data Portal block supplied to me — that block contains exactly one AIA proceeding. I was unable to retrieve the IPR2026-00505 petition PDF, its exhibit list, or any docket entry from PTAB Center / PTAB E2E in this session, and the proceeding was filed on today's date (2026-09-19), so no institution decision, POPR, scheduling order, or panel assignment can exist yet. Everything I say about challenged claims, grounds, and art is therefore flagged as unknown rather than inferred. I did not find any Federal Circuit appeal involving US 8,766,772.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file: 1 pending (IPR2026-00505, filed 2026-09-19, pre-institution) — 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settlements, 0 institution denials, 0 FWDs, 0 appeals. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is "untested patent, but a live fight with no clean precedent either way" — there is no FWD canceling any claim that a defendant can wave in a demand-letter response, but there is also no PTAB win for the patent owner. The material facts a defendant must internalize are that (a) the '772 is expired — anticipated expiration 2023-07-09, per the Google Patents legal-status record, so this is a past-damages case only and an IPR win would extinguish the entire asserted value of the patent; and (b) the IPR was filed by [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) et al. roughly six months after the co-pending Texas suits (W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00075, filed 2026-03-04; E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00157, filed 2026-02-27), which puts discretionary-denial questions squarely in play.

IPR2026-00505 — Apple Inc. et al. v. Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. (Patent Owner)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2026-09-19
• Status: Pending (verbatim from the structured data). Plain-English gloss: pre-institution. The petition has been accorded a filing date at most; no Patent Owner Preliminary Response has been filed, no institution decision has issued, and no trial has been instituted.
• Judge panel: Not public / not ascertainable. No panel is assigned at the pre-institution stage on the record available to me, and I could not retrieve the notice of filing date accorded from PTAB Center. Do not assume a panel.
• Petition grounds: Unknown — I could not retrieve the petition. I will not guess the challenged claims or references. Two structural constraints are nonetheless certain and worth planning around:
  • An IPR may be based only on §§ 102 and 103 grounds resting on patents or printed publications (§ 311(b)). System art, public use, on-sale art, and § 112 defenses cannot be raised in this forum.
  • The structured data names the petitioner as "Apple Inc. et al." — the "et al." likely denotes additional named petitioners and/or real parties in interest, but I could not confirm who they are. This matters for § 315(b) and for estoppel privity analysis (below).
• Institution decision: None. No institution decision can have issued. Under § 314(b), the Director's determination is due within 3 months of the later of the date the petition was filed or the date of the patent owner's preliminary response (which itself is due 3 months after service of the petition, 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b)). Working from the 2026-09-19 filing date, the practical window for a POPR and an institution decision runs to roughly 2026-12-19 absent an extension of time. Note the current practice under Director Squires of issuing "Notice of Decisions on Institution" grouping merits review, discretionary review, and denials.
• Final Written Decision: None. No FWD exists. No claim of the '772 has ever been canceled, confirmed, or held unpatentable in an AIA trial.
• Settlement / termination: None. The proceeding is not terminated. No § 317 joint motion to terminate is on file to my knowledge. If a settlement occurs pre-institution, the parties would likely request that the settlement papers be kept confidential under § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
• Appeal: None. No FWD, therefore nothing appealable. I found no CAFC docket, opinion, or Rule 36 judgment involving US 8,766,772. The well-known Neology appellate history (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1005, and the Neology v. ITC appeal reproduced in the Supreme Court appendix for No. 19-445) concerns the '044 and '436 patents — not the '772. Do not cite that history as precedent about this patent.
• Defensive value: Neutral-to-favorable, but unbanked. No FWD exists, so there is no estoppel and no canceled claim to leverage. The upside for a defendant is timing and economics: the '772 expired on 2023-07-09, so if IPR2026-00505 ends in cancellation of the asserted claims, the entire W.D. Tex. / E.D. Tex. assertion collapses rather than merely being narrowed. The risk is discretionary denial — see the strategic summary.

Strategic summary

Claim status: every claim is UNTESTED. Unlike a patent that has been through two IPRs, US 8,766,772 has no PTAB adjudication of any kind on its claims. Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 (mobile device with security-key gating; mobile device with biometric-match gating; cellular telephone with fingerprint scanner) and all dependents remain as issued. There is no cancellation to rely on and no confirmation order to fear. The only "narrowing" in the record is whatever occurred at prosecution of the application filed 2013-09-09, which is untested in an AIA forum. ⚠️ Cross-reference flag: the previously generated summary noted that the text of claim 15 was truncated in the available source. That gap matters here — if claim 15 is among those challenged, the precise scope of its processor limitations will control the institution analysis, and I could not obtain either the claim text or the petition in this session.

Estoppel landscape: none yet, and it will not attach until an FWD issues. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only after a final written decision, and only for grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised. Because IPR2026-00505 is pre-institution, there is currently zero estoppel against Apple, against any "et al." co-petitioner, or against their privies. Conversely, Samsung — which was sued in E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00157 but is not named in the structured petitioner field — carries no estoppel and, more importantly, faces its own § 315(b) one-year clock that runs from service (summons executed 2026-03-03/2026-03-04 per the E.D. Tex. docket), i.e. to roughly 2027-03-03/04. If Samsung wants PTAB relief, it must file or seek joinder to IPR2026-00505 within that window. Practical consequences:

• Still available in IPR (to a non-petitioner): any § 102/§ 103 ground on patents or printed publications, including art Apple did not find.
• Permanently outside IPR: § 112 written description/enablement/indefiniteness, public use, on-sale, and system-art combinations — these live only in district court or (for § 112) in a PGR, which is time-barred here given the 2014 issuance.
• Ex parte reexamination remains an open, estoppel-free channel on § 102/§ 103 patents-and-print-publications art, and it is where petitioners have been migrating in 2026 (USPTO Open Data Portal figures for 2026-04-15 to 2026-06-15 show 182 ex parte reexaminations versus 39 IPRs and 5 PGRs). I saw a 2026 notice in an unrelated EDTX case (4:25-cv-00230-ALM) in which Apple filed ex parte reexaminations against five asserted patents — I could not confirm any of those patents belong to the Mobility IP / Neology family, so I do not treat that as evidence of what Apple is doing against the '772.

Pattern signals. (1) No repeat-petitioner pattern on this patent — one petition, one petitioner group, one patent. The "multiple petitions challenging the same patent" red flag in the Director's current guidance is not yet present. (2) Patent owner is a fresh NPE transferee. The assignment to Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. was recorded 2026-02-11, and suit followed within weeks (2026-02-27 and 2026-03-04). The Google Patents family record also carries a "first worldwide family litigation filed" flag via Darts-ip (family 30115697). (3) No Unified Patents defensive-aggregator role is visible — the Unified Patents links on the Google Patents record are litigation-data citations, not petitioner identification. (4) No patent-owner PTAB appeals — there is no FWD to appeal.

The discretionary-denial risk is the central strategic variable, and it cuts both ways. Under the Director's 2026 framework — Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., IPR2026-00097, Paper 17 (PTAB May 14, 2026) (precedential) — institution is disfavored where an AIA review duplicates rather than substitutes for litigation. Mobility IP has strong arguments modeled on Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 (PTAB June 18, 2025) (informative) (settled expectations where the patent had long been in force and the petitioner gave no persuasive reason IPR was an appropriate use of Office resources) and Amgen Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., IPR2025-00601/-00602/-00603, Paper 9 (PTAB July 24, 2025) (informative) (settled expectations can attach to a patent in force three years; the '772 has been in force since 2014-07-01 and expired 2023-07-09). Apple's counterweights are Tesla, Inc. v. Bulletproof Property Management, LLC, IPR2026-00204 et al. (PTAB June 15, 2026) (informative) — a broad Sotera-style stipulation plus the absence of a scheduled trial date favors institution — and Magnolia's "examiner material error" exception. Whether Apple filed a broad stipulation is, in practical terms, the single most predictive fact for whether this IPR gets instituted, and I could not verify it. Also note the parallel-proceeding posture is two-front: the same PO is litigating against Apple in W.D. Tex. (Judge Albright, Midland) and Samsung in E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap, Marshall), so a stay outcome could differ between the two.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the actual petition before doing anything else. IPR2026-00505 is one day old, so no third-party service has indexed it. Retrieve it from PTAB Center (PTAB E2E), https://ptacts.uspto.gov, and from the USPTO Open Data Portal, https://data.uspto.gov — the petition and its exhibit list will give you the challenged claims, the § 102/§ 103 grounds, the RPI identification, and any Sotera-style stipulation. Until you have that, no infringement/invalidity position should be committed to writing.

2. If you are a defendant other than Apple: calendar your § 315(b) bar immediately. Samsung's one-year date runs to approximately 2027-03-03/2027-03-04. Either file your own petition or move for joinder to IPR2026-00505 under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (which, per recent Board practice, requires a petition that is substantially identical to the lead petition and a willingness to act as an understudy — see the joinder orders granting "silent understudy" status). Joinder is the cheapest path and preserves the § 315(e)(2) non-estoppel position you have today.

3. Track these milestones for IPR2026-00505 (all deadlines computed from the 2026-09-19 filing date, and subject to extension):

   • ~2026-12-19 — Patent Owner Preliminary Response due (3 months from service, 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b)).
   • ~2026-12-19 (or 3 months from the POPR if later) — Director's institution decision due under § 314(b).
   • If instituted — Scheduling Order issues with a FWD due within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), i.e. approximately 2027-12.
   • Watch for a Director "Notice of Decisions on Institution" that groups this petition with others in the same family.

4. Preserve the non-IPR grounds now. Because the '772 expired on 2023-07-09, the patent owner cannot amend claims in this IPR, and the Board will apply Phillips construction. Simultaneously, § 112 and non-printed-publication prior art (system art, public use, on-sale) is immune from any IPR estoppel and should be separately developed for the district court. If Apple filed only a narrow or no stipulation, the Fintiv-style calculus at institution is where this proceeding is most likely to be won or lost — and a defendant's ability to influence that through a stipulation of its own is time-sensitive.

5. Do not over-claim the ITC/CAFC history. Nothing in the Neology v. ITC line (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1005; Supreme Court No. 19-445 appendix reproducing the '044 and '436 claims) establishes anything about the '772's claims. Also treat the two "2026 litigation" entries on the Google Patents family record (7:26-cv-00075, 2:26-cv-00157) as the SOURCE of the assertion, not as evidence of PTAB activity — they are district court cases, not AIA trials.

Confidence statement. High confidence: proceeding count, number, type, filing date, status, petitioner field, absence of any FWD/appeal/settlement, and the patent's expired status and assignment chain. Low confidence / unverified: challenged claims, grounds, references, named co-petitioners or RPIs, panel, any institution-related filings, and any stipulation. I would not represent any of the latter items to a court or a client without first retrieving the petition from PTAB Center.

I'll attempt to pull the recorded assignment data and corroborating sources before writing the analysis.

Good — I'm finding corroborating litigation and assignment data. Let me drill into the specific reel/frame records and the correspondent of record.

I hit the tool-call ceiling mid-investigation, so a few fields (notably reel/frame and correspondent of record) remain unverified. I'll flag those explicitly rather than fill them in.

Also worth noting up front: this task resolves two open items from the earlier Patent Summary section. The two 2026 Texas cases the summary could not identify are now identified (see §NPE signals 5), and the assignment to Mobility IP Holdings is confirmed as preceding them by under three weeks.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: I found no evidence that either inventor departed Neology within 12 months of any filing event. Two caveats nonetheless:

• The inventor/assignee geography (La Jolla + Marktoberdorf → BNC IP Switzerland GmbH → Neology, Inc.) is a transatlantic co-development signature, not a fire-sale precursor.
• ⚠️ I cannot confirm either inventor's employment status at filing — I did not retrieve an employee-assignment agreement, and Google Patents does not surface inventor employment data.

Original assignee

Neology, Inc. (Poway, CA) is the assignee named on the face of the issued patent and the assignee of record immediately pre-2026.

• Primary line of business: operating company in RFID. Neology manufactured/sold RFID tags, readers, and vehicle-identification and tolling systems (the '772 spec's "RF registered item / license plate" and "border crossing control" embodiments are its commercial subject matter). Google Patents' own technical record corroborates the operating-company character: Neology appears as a competitor entity alongside BNC IP Switzerland GmbH in third-party assignee-mapping datasets.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Substantially yes — Neology's tolling/vehicle-ID hardware and Secure RFID "security patents" family were real commercial products, and the company's 2015 declaration in IPR2015-00824 describes Neology people (not a licensing desk) managing its Delaware litigation against Kapsch TrafficCom.
• Corporate control at the relevant time: in the Uhl Declaration filed 2015-05-01 in IPR2015-00824 (Neology, Inc. v. Kapsch), the declarant states under oath: "Smartrac owns one hundred percent (100%) of the shares of Neology, Inc." So Neology was a wholly owned subsidiary of SMARTRAC N.V., not an independent entity.
• Current status: still an operating entity as of Feb 2026 (it executed the February 2026 assignment as assignor), but it has divested this patent. I did not verify the 2018-onward SMARTRAC/Neology ownership changes from a primary source, so I decline to characterize its 2026 parentage.

⚠️ Name-collision warning — do not conflate: an unrelated Swiss company also called "Neology" (ammonia-to-hydrogen cracking systems, per a 2023 Osaka innovation-program deck) has no relationship to the RFID Neology, Inc.

Assignment timeline

Sourcing caveat, stated plainly: I could not query assignmentcenter.uspto.gov or assignment.uspto.gov directly in this session — the Assignment Center search is a JavaScript application that my text-fetch tooling cannot drive, and my attempts to surface the '772's specific reel/frame returned the sibling patent's records and then hit the tool-call limit. The timeline below is therefore built from Google Patents' legal-events table for US8766772 (supplied in the patent record) and corroborating USPTO assignment exhibits filed in the related IPR2015 proceedings. Recording dates and party names are well-sourced. Execution dates and reel/frame numbers are NOT — I have left them marked unverified rather than guess.

There are three recorded post-issuance/pre-issuance assignments.

1. 2014-05-13 (recorded) — Reel ⚠️ unverified for '772

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Manfred Rietzler; Francisco Martinez de Velasco Cortina (the named inventors)
• Assignee: BNC IP SWITZERLAND GMBH
• Correspondent: ⚠️ not retrievable (see §3 below — this is the single biggest gap in this analysis)
• Context: Internal reorg / IP consolidation — inventors' rights folded into a Swiss IP-holding affiliate of the Neology/SMARTRAC group, recorded ~7 weeks before the patent issued (2014-07-01).

2. 2014-05-13 (recorded) — Reel ⚠️ unverified for '772

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: BNC IP SWITZERLAND GMBH
• Assignee: NEOLOGY, INC.
• Correspondent: ⚠️ not retrievable
• Context: Same-day upstream transfer to the US operating company — the second half of a two-step, same-day internal reorganization. Not a fire-sale; both links record on the same date.

Partial reel/frame evidence (belongs to the sibling patent, offered only as orientation): the USPTO assignment exhibit lodged in IPR2015-00815 for US 8,587,436 — a patent in the same Neology family with the same two co-inventors and the same 2013-2014 chain — shows Reel/Frame 032883/0375, Recorded 05/13/2014 (to BNC IP Switzerland GmbH) and Reel/Frame 032892/0318. Because US assignment recordings are batched by date and conveyor, the '772's 2014-05-13 recordings almost certainly sit in the 032883–032892 reel range — but I will not assert the '772's exact frames without seeing the record.

3. 2026-02-11 (recorded) — Reel ⚠️ unverified

• Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST" (per Google Patents' legal-events table)
• Assignor: NEOLOGY, INC.
• Assignee: MOBILITY IP HOLDINGS, INC.
• Correspondent: ⚠️ not retrievable — the highest-value missing data point in this whole exercise
• Context: Transfer-to-asserter. Recorded 16 days before the first infringement complaint naming this patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8766772
    2002 : Priority date asserted
    2013 : Application filed
    2014 : Patent issued
         : Inventors assign to BNC IP Switzerland
         : BNC IP Switzerland assigns to Neology
    2023 : Anticipated term expiration
    2026 : Neology assigns to Mobility IP Holdings
         : Suit filed against Samsung
         : Suit filed against Apple

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT (strong).
Evidence is the 2026-02-11 recording, Neology, Inc. → Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. Supporting tells, in order of weight: (a) the "Holdings" suffix is present but is not the finding; (b) the concrete finding is timing and conduct — the assignee acquired the asset and filed two infringement complaints within 21 days (2026-02-27 and 2026-03-04), a pattern inconsistent with an operating acquirer; (c) no product, service, or SEC filing by Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. surfaced in my searches, whereas the assignor Neology has an identifiable commercial product line; (d) the acquisition was of a patent whose anticipated expiration is 2023-07-09 (per Google Patents legal status), i.e., an already-expired asset purchased to pursue retroactive damages.
⚠️ Caveat I want on the record: I did not verify Mobility IP Holdings, Inc.'s state of incorporation, registered-agent address, or single-membership structure. One aggregator page (ai-lab.exparte.com) labels the plaintiff "Operating Company" in a docket metadata field — that field is machine-populated boilerplate and I give it no weight. A separate, similarly-named entity, "Mobility IP Holding, LLC," sued Para Mobility PTY Ltd. in N.D.N.Y. (3:26-cv-01456) on US 9,863,577 and 10,125,920 — different patents, different corporate form (LLC vs. Inc.), different court. I flag this as possibly related and unverified rather than treating them as one entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT (on the enumerated lists) / UNCLEAR as a category.
Neither Neology, Inc. nor Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. appears on the enumerated public NPE rosters (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, Spangenberg entities) based on my searches — but my searches for a Unified Patents / RPX asserter-directory entry for Mobility IP Holdings were curtailed by the tool-call limit, so I mark the directory check incomplete rather than negative. Note that the enumerated rosters are also largely pre-2020, and a 2026 first-time filer would not be expected to appear on them.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — ⚠️ UNVERIFIABLE IN THIS SESSION.
This is the signal I most wanted to run and could not. I retrieved zero correspondent-of-record entries for this chain. The 2026 recording correspondent is the single most probative document a follow-up pass should pull, because a repeat-player monetization attorney would show up on both the 2026-02-11 '772 recording and on the parallel Mobility IP recordings for US 8,151,345 / 8,548,924 / 8,933,807 / 10,235,513 / 10,706,412 / 10,762,187. I am not going to name a firm or attorney here — doing so on no evidence is exactly the speculation the brief forbids.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT (as a cascade), with one structural note.
There are two same-day transfers in 2014 but they are inventors → group IP affiliate → group operating company, i.e., an internal reorg at a single corporate group, not a chain of serially-created LLCs. The 2014 and 2026 recordings are ~11.7 years apart. There is therefore no <24-month cascade of the kind this signal targets. Structural note: the fact that the front of the chain is a Swiss holding company (BNC IP Switzerland GmbH) with no US commercial presence of its own is worth recording, but it is characteristic of a multinational group's tax/IP structuring, not of a patent troll.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (strong, and the strongest signal in the file).

• 2026-02-11 — assignment of assignor's interest, Neology, Inc. → Mobility IP Holdings, Inc., recorded.
• 2026-02-27 — Mobility IP et al v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al, E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00157, Marshall Division, Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserts US 8,766,772 among seven patents (also 8,151,345; 8,548,924; 8,933,807; 10,235,513; 10,706,412; 10,762,187).
• 2026-03-04 — Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00075, Midland Division, Judge Alan Albright. Accused products: iPhone XR onward, Apple Watch Series 5+, iPads; functionality is Apple Pay / biometric authentication + NFC payment transmission.

The assignment-to-first-suit gap is 16 days (Samsung) and 21 days (Apple), comfortably inside the 6-month threshold. This is a textbook assert-ready chain-and-venue arrangement: the asset was moved into the asserting entity before filing, to establish a clean standing record.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding for Neology, SMARTRAC, or BNC IP Switzerland GmbH surfaced. The divestiture was a voluntary, dated monetization transfer, not a court-supervised sale.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR.
The morphology fits privateering (an operating company's RFID payments patents moving to a non-practicing entity that then sues Apple and Samsung), but privateering implies the operating company retains an interest, a royalty stream, or a coordinated assert strategy. I found no evidence of retained economic interest by Neology/SMARTRAC, no SEC filing disclosing a contingent-value right, and no Patent Progress/EFF coverage. Absent that, the cleaner characterization is outright portfolio monetization, not privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at an asserting plaintiff with live infringement suits, not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two independent strong signals converge. First, pre-litigation transfer: the 2026-02-11 assignment-of-assignor's-interest recording from Neology, Inc. to Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. precedes the first complaint naming this patent by 16 days (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00157, filed 2026-02-27) and the Apple complaint by 21 days (W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00075, filed 2026-03-04). Second, shell-entity transfer: the asset moved from an identifiable RFID operating company with shipping products (Neology, Inc., a SMARTRAC subsidiary per the sworn 2015 Uhl Declaration in IPR2015-00824) into a "Holdings" entity with no products, no SEC filings, and no commercial footprint I could locate — an entity that acquired a patent whose listed anticipated expiration is 2023-07-09, meaning the entire 2026 campaign pursues past damages on an expired asset. The 2014 chain (inventors → BNC IP Switzerland GmbH → Neology, same day) is ordinary group-housekeeping and I do not count it toward the verdict.

The residue of doubt sits in signal 3. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for the 2026-02-11 recording, and this is the one fact that would convert "high confidence" into a named, cross-referenced assertion network. A single Assignment Center pull on US 8,766,772 — and on the six co-asserted Mobility IP patents — would resolve it. Until then the verdict rests on timing and product-presence evidence, which is strong but not complete.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — search US 8,766,772 · Assignment Search mirror · Google Patents legal events · W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00075 · E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00157

Corrections and reconciliations to the previously-generated sections

1. Resolved — open item from the prior section. The earlier summary could not identify the parties in the two 2026 Texas cases. They are Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00075, Judge Albright, Midland, filed 2026-03-04) and Mobility IP et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00157, Judge Gilstrap, Marshall, filed 2026-02-27). US 8,766,772 is asserted in the Samsung case.
2. Refinement — "original assignee." The prior section records the original assignee as Neology, Inc. That is correct for the face of the issued patent, but the recorded chain actually shows BNC IP Switzerland GmbH as the first recorded assignee (from the inventors), with Neology, Inc. taking title by a second same-day assignment. Neither the Google Patents page nor the previous summary surfaces this intermediate link.
3. Reconciled — expiration vs. priority. The prior section flags the July 2023 expiration as an inconsistency with the 2002-07-09 priority date; Google Patents lists "Anticipated expiration 2023-07-09." A 20-year term from the 2002-07-09 priority date would run to 2022-07-09, so the listed 2023-07-09 date reconciles better with a term measured against the 2003-07-09 PCT filing (WO 2004/006165, priority US 60/394,241 filed 09.07.2002). I flag this as a plausible reconciliation, not a verified one — I did not confirm the terminal-disclaimer, PTA, or continuation-chain arithmetic.
4. Not in conflict: the earlier summary's statement that the '772 shares a common specification with US 8,325,044 and US 8,587,436 is consistent with the assignment evidence — the '436 USPTO assignment exhibit (IPR2015-00815) shows the same 2014-05-13 recording date to BNC IP Switzerland GmbH, confirming a batched, family-wide recording event.

I'll search for the front-page citations (References Cited) of US 8,766,772 specifically.

The authoritative text I was given omits the "References Cited" block. Let me pull the front-page citations from full-text mirrors.

Let me get the actual front-page references from other full-text mirrors.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 8,766,772 B2

0. Scope note and a material gap you should know about (read first)

I ran targeted searches keyed to the literal string 8766772. Two limitations must be flagged before any §102 opinion:

1. The authoritative full text you supplied contains no "(56) References Cited" block. The Google Patents rendering you pasted jumps from the Classifications/Landscapes straight to the Abstract and Description. It has no front-page U.S. patent list, no foreign patent list, and no non-patent-literature list. I could not retrieve the '772's face-of-patent citation list from any mirror I reached (PatentCenter, Global Dossier, FPO, and the patentimages PDF were not accessible to my tooling in this session). So I cannot represent that the list below is the '772's examiner-cited art. What I can do is (a) give you the references that are verifiably cited inside the '772 as issued, (b) give you citation-network and same-family references that search results tied to the '772, and (c) run the §102 analysis on each. Items (b) are expressly flagged as unverified as to the '772's face.
2. Pre-AIA §102 governs. The '772's effective filing date is carried from the 2002-07-09 priority date (2013-09-09 filing of 14/022,135 is a continuation). The AIA first-inventor-to-file §§102(a)(1)/(a)(2) framework therefore does not apply. I use §§102(a), (b), (e), and (g).

Legal consequence that dominates everything below: art published, issued, or filed after 2002-07-09 is not §102(a)/(b) art against these claims (absent an earlier effective filing for §102(e)). Given the '772's 2002 priority, the realistic universe of §102 art is documents from before July 9, 2002 — which is a much narrower universe than the '772's 2014 issue date would suggest.

1. References verifiably cited within the '772 (applicant IDS / incorporation by reference)

The only prior-art-type citations I can confirm from the authoritative text are in the Description, at the "RF Device" section:

"A more detailed description of an RF device can be found in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/118,092 filed 9 Apr. 2002; PCT Patent Application PCT/IB02/01439, filed 30 Apr. 2002, which are herein incorporated by reference."

Practical takeaway: R1/R2 are the only references I can verify as cited. They are the patent owner's own work, which is precisely why they matter — they are a classic self-collision vector, and they sit before the '772's own priority date by three months and nine months respectively.

2. Citation-network references tied to the '772 in the search results (⚠️ unverified as to the '772's face)

These appeared in Google Patents cross-citation tables alongside the string "US8766772B2," but the snippets did not let me determine reliably whether the '772 cites the document or is cited by it. Treat the "cited by the '772" characterization as medium-confidence at best.

3. The prior art that actually threatens the '772: same-family self-collision (§102(e)/(b) + §103)

This is my principal analytical conclusion, and it is more important than any of R1–R5.

Because the '772's independent claims 1/9/15 are apparatus claims to a mobile device / cellular telephone with an RF chip and a biometric sensor that conditionally releases stored transaction data, and because that subject matter is described in the '772's own 2002 specification, the most relevant "prior art" is the Neology family's own earlier-filed and earlier-published members, which are §102(e) and, where published before 2002-07-09, §102(b) candidates:

4. Bottom-line §102 assessment

• No single reference I examined anticipates claims 1, 9, or 15 in their entirety. Claim 1 requires (i) biometric input device, (ii) RF antenna + chip with memory storing a security key, transaction information, and biometric information, and (iii) a processor that compares an RF-received security key to the stored key and releases the transaction information on a match. Claim 9 swaps the key comparison for a local biometric match (processor receives biometric info from the biometric input device, compares it to stored biometric info, and releases the transaction information on a match). None of R1–R5, on the record I could retrieve, discloses that conditional-release mechanism.
• The strongest §102 theory is R1/R2 (pre-AIA §102(e)), because those two applications were filed before the 2002-07-09 priority date and are expressly made part of the '772's disclosure. Whether they are "by another" turns entirely on whether the '772's §120 benefit chain runs through them — a question I could not answer from the sources available.
• The strongest §103 theory pairs a contactless-smartcard/biometric NPL reference (R5) with an RF-chip architecture reference (R1/R2/R3).
• Date-caution: R4 (Shore, 2003-08-07) and the 2004 NPL item are post-priority and are not §102(a)/(b) art absent an earlier §102(e) filing date.
• Enforcement context (from the earlier sections, flagged for consistency): the '772 is listed Expired – Lifetime, anticipated expiration July 9, 2023. Any 2026 recovery is confined to past damages inside the §286 window. Also note the date inconsistency already flagged in the litigation section — the task header says April 26, 2026 while my system date is 2026-09-19; I have not re-dated anything here.

5. What I could not verify (stated plainly rather than guessed)

• The actual (56) References Cited list on US 8,766,772's face — not present in the authoritative text supplied, and not retrievable by me in this session.
• Whether 10/118,092 issued as US 8,151,345 B2 (I say "likely," not "verified").
• Whether US 6,753,759 is a citation of the '772 or merely cross-linked in the citation network.
• Whether the R5 NPL cluster is on the '772's IDS (I only confirmed it on the related US 10,867,297).
• The '772's exact §120/§119 priority chain — this is the gating issue for every §102(e) theory above.

Recommended verification steps to close these gaps: (1) pull the printed patent PDF / PatentCenter "References Cited" for US 8,766,772; (2) pull the file wrapper for application 14/022,135, specifically the Office Actions of Dec. 5, 2013 and Mar. 7, 2014 and the allowance of Jul. 11, 2014 (all four dates appear in the related '297's document list) — those actions name the examiner's art and the reasons for allowance; (3) reconstruct the §120 chain from the Application Data Sheet to determine whether the 2002-04-09 and 2002-07-09 chains merge.

I'll start by looking for the prior-art references actually cited on the face of this patent, since the "Prior Art section" referenced in the task is not included in the material supplied to me.

Let me pull the actual front-page "References Cited" list for US 8,766,772 (the "Prior Art" tab data), since that is what the task instructs me to use.

Let me try to retrieve the actual cited-references list from the patent's full-text record, and also search for 2002-era prior art on mobile devices with biometric + RFID payment.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,766,772 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

⚠️ Threshold caveat on the "Prior Art section"

The task instructs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." No Prior Art section was supplied in the materials provided to me — the user message contained only the patent text plus the previously-generated summary and litigation sections. My attempts to pull the '772's own front-page (56) "References Cited" list this session were only partly successful: I retrieved the cited lists of sibling/family patents (the '044, '436, '719, '414, '807) but not a verified (56) list as printed on US 8,766,772 itself. The analysis below therefore rests on two grounding sources, each labeled:

• [SPEC] — references named inside the '772 specification itself (from the authoritative text you supplied). Highest confidence.
• [FAM] — references retrieved this session from the co-family front pages/'719 patents (searchable record). High confidence that these documents exist and are cited in the family; medium confidence that they appear on the '772's own face.
• [GK] — my general knowledge, flagged for verification (numbers not confirmed this session).

A. Claim scope and the critical date

Effective priority date: the Google Patents record supplied to you lists priority 2002-07-09; the Unified Patents record for US-2015-0287023-A1 (a direct child, app. 14/724,593) lists 2002-07-08. These disagree by one day; the practical effect on prior-art cutoff is nil, but I flag it per the "do not auto-correct identifiers" rule. The '772 was filed 2013-09-09 as a continuation; assuming it carries the 2002 benefit (it claims the same specification), prior art must predate ~July 2002.

Claim framework (from the labeled summary):

• Claim 1: mobile device + biometric input device + RF antenna/chip storing (a) a security key, (b) transaction information, (c) biometric information; processor compares a received key to the stored key and releases transaction info only on a key match.
• Claim 9: same architecture, but the processor releases transaction info on a local biometric match (received biometric = stored biometric), with no security-key comparison.
• Claim 15: cellular telephone + fingerprint scanner + memory storing transaction and fingerprint info + processor.
• Deps 10–14 / 16–18: cellphone/smartphone/tablet; fingerprint scanner specifically; passing received biometric data with the transaction data; "transaction information" = account information; = credit-card information.

Note the important structural point: all three independent claims are apparatus claims whose only real advance over the family's toll/RFID claims is the "mobile device + on-board biometric sensor" packaging and the conditional release of stored transaction data. That framing drives the obviousness case.

B. Prior art relied upon

What the '772 itself admits is known (applicant's own words, [SPEC]): the RF device has a cryptographic block that stores security keys that are "checked and validated to grant or deny access to the memory chip"; the chip's EEPROM stores "fingerprint minutiae or other biometric template, the holder's biographical information"; the POS/reader includes a "fingerprint digital scanning device 1232"; the phone may include a "fingerprint identifier 1221 … designed specifically to run fingerprint matching software" and a "cryptographic programmable block chip 1349"; and the RF phone "can be used as a substitute for credit cards" and as a boarding pass. In other words, the specification concedes that every individual hardware element of the claims was known. The question is purely combination.

C. Element-by-element § 103 analysis

Claim 1 (security-key gating)

Conclusion: Claim 1 is a predictable combination of Snodgrass (RF memory-access gating) + a mobile-device/biometric host (fingerprint sensor + on-board RFID chip storing account/biometric data). Compared with the already-adjudicated sibling claims, claim 1's only added element is placing the RF-key-gated chip in a phone with a fingerprint sensor and calling the gated data "transaction information."

Claim 9 (biometric-match gating)

Substitute biometric-template-match art for the security-key gate: a portable token that stores a fingerprint template and authorizes a function when a live print matches (Lane/Hsu class [GK — verify]). Combined with a mobile device bearing an RFID chip storing account/credit-card data (Marion/Gehlot [FAM]) and the '772's admitted fingerprint-identifier architecture [SPEC], claim 9's release-on-biometric-match is the routine substitution of a biometric gate for the known key/PIN gate — a design choice with predictable results (KSR).

Claim 15 (cellular telephone + fingerprint scanner)

This is the narrowest independent claim and the easiest to meet: a cellular telephone (known), a fingerprint scanner (known — the '772 itself places one in a POS and in the phone [SPEC]), memory storing transaction + fingerprint information (Marion/Gehlot [FAM]), and a processor coupled to both (known). Claim 15 may even be met by a single primary reference plus the applicant's own incorporated RF-device applications (10/118,092; PCT/IB02/01439 [SPEC]).

D. The specific combinations and the motivation to combine

Combination 1 (attacks claims 1, 15): Snodgrass + (Marion or Gehlot) + a fingerprint-sensor mobile handset.

• Snodgrass supplies the "compare a received key to a stored key → release memory only on match" limitation.
• Marion/Gehlot supply the "portable RF device carrying account/transaction data redeemed at a reader" limitation.
• The handset-with-fingerprint-sensor supplies the biometric-input limitation.
• Motivation: avoiding credit card fraud/identity substitution and reducing the need to carry separate cards — motivations the '772 itself recites as the object of the invention. A POSITA facing the known problem of unauthorized/contactless reading of a payment credential had a clear incentive to (i) password/key-protect the RF memory (Snodgrass) and (ii) bind release of the credential to the holder's fingerprint.

Combination 2 (attacks claim 9): biometric-template-match token + a mobile device with an RFID/NFC chip storing transaction data.

• Motivation: replacing easily-stolen PINs/keys with a non-transferable biometric for one-to-one ("the presenter is the owner") verification at a point of sale — expressly the '772's stated purpose ("One-to-one verification ensures that the information on the RF cellular telephone matches the holder").

Combination 3 (attacks claim 15): applicant's incorporated RF-device applications + a fingerprint-equipped handset + Marion/Gehlot. For claim 15 the combination is even thinner because the claim omits any explicit conditional-release algorithm.

Why the combination is "obvious" as a matter of law (KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Graham factors):

1. Known elements, known functions. Each element (RF chip, key/password gate, biometric sensor, stored account data) was independently known in the ~1997–2001 window [FAM], [SPEC].
2. Predictable result. Combining them yields only the expected benefit of a more secure, more convenient payment credential — no unexpected property is claimed.
3. Same field / reasonably pertinent. The references are all directed to secure identification and RF financial transactions — the exact problem the '772 addresses.
4. Design incentive & market pressure. Fraud prevention and card-displacement are recited in the specification itself, supplying the "reason the skilled artisan would have made the combination."
5. Identification of a finite set of known options. Adding a fingerprint sensor to a portable transaction device, and gating memory on a key or a biometric match, are among a small number of predictable approaches.

E. Dependent claims 10–14, 16–18

These are almost certainly obvious if the independents fall:

• "cellular telephone / smartphone / tablet" — mere recitation of the host form factor, all known.
• "fingerprint scanner" — the '772 itself uses a fingerprint scanner [SPEC].
• "provide the received biometric information with the transaction information" — a predictable data-logging/verification convenience.
• "transaction information is account information / credit card information" — the prototypical RFID e-purse/contactless payment use (Marion/Gehlot [FAM]).

None adds an unobvious step; each is the "familiar element … according to known methods."

F. Rebuttal considerations (what a validity challenger can expect)

• No strong secondary-consideration story is apparent on the face of the record: the '772 shares the entire specification of the '044/'436 family, whose relevant claims were found anticipated by Snodgrass (PTAB IPR2015-00819) — powerful § 103 momentum. Commercial success, if any, would have to be nexus-linked to the mobile-device/biometric features specifically, not to Neology's general RFID/security business.
• Claim 9 is the strongest patent owner position, because "release transaction data only upon an on-board biometric match" (no reader key) is a narrower, more specific algorithm; a challenger should still prevail via the biometric-token art + mobile-RFID art combination, but this is the claim to attack with the most tailored rationale.
• Teaching away: I found none. The art is uniformly pushing toward more secure, more portable credentials.
• Written-description/priority risk (two-edged): if any '772 claim is not supported by the 2002 priority application, its critical date shifts later, which only enlarges the prior-art field (e.g., adds 2002–2013 contactless-payment art).

G. Caveats / what should be verified before relying on this

1. The "Prior Art section" referenced by the task was not provided, and I could not retrieve the '772's own printed (56) list this session. The [FAM] references above are verified as cited in the family ('044/'436/'719/'414), not necessarily on the '772 face. Pull the '772 front page (USPTO PatentCenter / Google Patents "Prior Art" tab) to lock this down.
2. Biometric-token references (Lane/Hsu) are marked [GK] — I did not verify their numbers/content here. Confirm before citing.
3. I have not verified claim 15's full text (flagged in the earlier summary as truncated); the analysis assumes its middle processor limitations mirror claims 1/9. A definitive claim-construction-based § 103 opinion requires the issued claim 15.
4. The '772 is expired (anticipated expiration 2023-07-09) and is being asserted in the two 2026 Texas cases by Mobility IP Holdings. Even if invalid under § 103, an invalidity defense in those suits resolves infringement; the § 103 analysis above is the roadmap a defendant (Apple; Samsung) would most plausibly follow.

If you can supply the actual "Prior Art section" you intended (or authorize a direct pull of the '772's (56) list from a full-text mirror), I will re-run the mapping strictly against those references and produce element-by-element claim charts for claims 1, 9, and 15.