US 9269247

I'll run searches for the patent and any 2026 CAFC docket activity, then reconcile with the authoritative full text provided.

Let me check for any 2026 CAFC docket activity and the exact claim text.

Let me search for the CAFC 2026 docket status and the exact independent claim language.

US 9,269,247 B2 — Analyst Summary

Sourcing note: I searched for this exact number only. The authoritative full text you supplied (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑30) is truncated — it ends in the middle of the Background section, before the claims. So my bibliographic summary below is solid, but my per-claim overview rests on the abstract, the specification and IPR excerpts rather than the verbatim claim set. Where that matters I flag it explicitly.

Bibliographic data

Continuation chain (from the patent's own Cross Reference): 14/825,436 → cont. of 14/529,516 (US 9,135,800) → cont. of 14/254,244 (US 8,884,762) → cont. of 13/169,968 (abandoned) → CIP of 12/770,321 (US 7,969,305) → cont. of 11/639,102 (US 7,737,846), claiming benefit of 60/753,908 (2005‑12‑23). It is a member of a very large InVue continuation family including US 9,396,631; 9,478,110; 9,576,452; 9,659,472; 10,003,867; 10,003,113; 11,721,198; and US 12,205,457.

Abstract (verbatim from the patent)

"A programmable security system and method for protecting an item of merchandise includes a programming station, a programmable key and a security system. The programming station generates a security code and communicates the security code to a memory of the programmable key. The programmable key initially communicates the security code to a memory of the security device and subsequently operates the security device upon a matching of the security code in the memory of the security device with the security code in the memory of the programmable key. The programmable key may also transfer power via electrical contacts or inductive transfer from an internal battery to the security device to operate a lock mechanism. The security code may be communicated by wireless infrared (IR) systems, electrical contacts or inductive transfer. A timer inactivates the programmable key and/or the security device after a predetermine period of time. A counter inactivates the programmable key after a predetermined maximum number of activations."

Plain‑language overview of the independent claims

Caveat — read this first. My supplied text does not contain the claims, and I could not retrieve the verbatim claim set as filed in this session. What follows is reconstructed from (a) the abstract, (b) the specification, and (c) IPR petition excerpts quoting the claims. Treat the substance as reliable and the exact wording as unverified. I do not want to fabricate claim language.

The patent appears to carry 37 claims, with the independent claims dividing roughly into (i) an apparatus/system group and (ii) a method group (the IPR record repeatedly refers to "Claims 25–37" being challenged, and to Claim 25 and Claim 31 as independent).

Independent method claim (Claim 25) — as quoted in the IPR petition, verbatim in part:

"A method for protecting items of merchandise from theft, the method comprising:
[a] generating a unique security code with a logic control circuit provided in a programming station;
[b] providing the unique security code to each of a plurality of programmable keys, each of the plurality of programmable keys having a memory and the unique security code stored in its memory;
[c] storing the unique security code at a plurality of security devices each configured to be attached to an item of merchandise, each of the plurality of security devices having a memory and the unique security code stored in its memory, each of the plurality of security devices comprising an alarm configured to be activated in response to the integrity of the security device being compromised; and …"

In plain terms: a programming station randomly generates a unique security code; that code is loaded into multiple programmable keys; each key in turn loads the same code into multiple merchandise security devices; and thereafter the key arms/disarms the device only when the codes match. The point is a viral, one-way provisioning scheme — the station seeds the keys, the keys seed the alarms, and a stolen key is useless at another store because that store's station generated a different code.

Independent claim (Claim 31) — a parallel claim in which the code is stored at a plurality of security devices and the operative step is "arming or disarming each of the security devices upon a matching of the unique security code" in the device memory with the code in the key memory.

Apparatus/system independent claims (I could not verify their exact numbering or wording). Based on the abstract and specification, the top-of-patent independent claim(s) are directed to a security system comprising three cooperating elements:

1. Programming station — controller + memory + communication circuit that generates a random security code (SDC) and communicates it to the key. Body/housing may be IR-transmissive; secured in a restricted-access location; actuator key-switch restricts use.
2. Programmable key — internal battery, controller, communication circuit, SDC memory, and (per the description) an internal timer that invalidates the SDC after a preset period (96 hours in the preferred embodiment; 6–12 hours in the later-described electronic-key embodiment) and an activation counter that permanently disables the key after a maximum number of activations.
3. Security device (alarm module, display stand, fixture, cabinet lock, security packaging, etc.) — memory storing the SDC, communication circuit, alarm, and sense loop(s); it alarms if a key with a non-matching SDC is presented.

Dependent claims appear to add: wireless IR communication; a "handshake" authentication exchange; electrical-contact and inductive power/data transfer from the key's battery to a passive lock; light pipes on the key and device; and end-of-life / near-end-of-life signaling in the alarm module.

Plain-language gist of the whole patent: Replace the universal mechanical/magnetic key with a store-unique, expiring, self-limiting electronic key that both carries a secret code and hands it to the devices it protects, so a stolen key stops working anywhere — and stops working soon.

Litigation / PTAB / CAFC docket check

• District court: InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., No. 3:17‑cv‑01356 (D. Or.) — the one case in the Stanford NPE database listing this patent. Also a N.D. Cal. case 3:17‑cv‑00075 appears in the Google Patents family-litigation list.
• PTAB: IPR2016‑00898, IPR2016‑00899, IPR2017‑01900 and IPR2017‑01901 are all listed as filed with Final Written Decisions (petitioner Unified Patents per the portal metadata). Related InVue/Mobile Tech IPRs (IPR2016‑00895, ‑00896) targeted the parent US 9,135,800.
• CAFC: dockets found are 2018–2019 vintage — 18‑1236, 18‑1238, 18‑1239, 18‑2202 (InVue v. Mobile Tech, panel Lourie/O'Malley/Wallach), and 19‑1779.

Explicit uncertainty: I found no 2026 CAFC docket activity for US 9,269,247 in these searches, and I could not directly query the CAFC's own 2026 docket or the USPTO PatentCenter record (the pages surfaced were secondary aggregators). I therefore cannot confirm or deny whether this patent has any live 2026 appellate proceeding. If that matters to your analysis, it should be verified against the CAFC docket system and USPTO PatentCenter directly before being relied on. Given the patent's stated legal status ("Expired – Fee Related") and anticipated 2026‑12‑14 expiration, fresh 2026 appellate activity would be noteworthy and worth explicit confirmation.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9269247/en · https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[9269247](/patent/9269247).html · https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9269247-0 · https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[3008467](/patent/3008467)-invue-security-products-v-mobile-tech · IPR petition excerpts at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1475894](/patent/1475894)/

I'll search litigation databases for this specific patent number.

Bottom line

The only entity that has ever asserted US 9,269,247 is its owner, InVue Security Products Inc. (a product company, not an NPE). Every assertion ran against a single defendant, Mobile Tech, Inc. (d/b/a Mobile Technologies Inc. and MTI, f/k/a Merchandising Technologies, Inc.). The '247 patent was also the subject of two PTAB inter partes reviews that cancelled all 37 claims, a result affirmed on appeal. I found no 2026 activity of any kind.

One caveat up front: I ran searches against the aggregators that index this family (Unified Patents litigation portal, Stanford NPE database, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia, RPX Insight, PTAB/PTABCTS, CAFC opinions site). Two rounds of search were cut off, so my outcome/current-status column is weaker than my case-identification column. I flag every gap explicitly rather than guess.

1. District court litigation

Case A — the core case (primary assertion of the '247 patent)

This is the case that satisfies your query directly. It is confirmed in the PTAB petition itself: "InVue sued MTI in the Western District of North Carolina (Case No. 3:15-cv-00610), alleging infringement of the '247 Patent, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 8,884,762 ('the '762 Patent') and 9,135,800 ('the '800 Patent')." It is also the case the Stanford NPE database maps to 9,269,247.

Case B — the transferee/consolidated proceeding

Case C — the S.D. Ind. case that fed into Case B

Case C is worth calling out because the complaint in that action (available at iniplaw.org) is the clearest document linking the '247 patent to the Oregon lead case.

A case to EXCLUDE (adjacent, same parties, different patents)

InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-00407-SI (D. Or., filed 2019) — this is InVue v. MTI round two, but the patents-in-suit are US 9,830,787 and US 10,055,954 ("Merchandise Security System Including Retractable Alarming Power Cord"). The '247 patent is not asserted here. MTI's Rule 12(b)(6) motion was denied on Oct. 18, 2019. Do not attribute this case to the '247 patent.

2. PTAB proceedings (contested, same parties — not district court "litigation," but these are what actually killed the patent)

The Board consolidated -00898 and -00899 and held: "we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-37 of the '247 patent are unpatentable." Grounds were §103(a) over Rothbaum + Denison (plus Ott for claim 2) and, in -00899, anticipation/obviousness over Belden. InVue filed a Notice of Appeal on November 30, 2017, challenging the FWD and raising the Oil States constitutionality issue.

Note the statutory bar chronology: MTI filed these IPRs one year after the W.D.N.C. complaint was served (Dec. 21, 2015), which is why the April 14, 2016 filings were timely.

3. CAFC appeals

The practical effect: the March 8, 2019 Rule 36 affirmance of the -00898/-00899 FWD finally cancelled claims 1–37 of the '247 patent.

4. Contradictions / unverified items — flagging explicitly

1. Google Patents' family-litigation widget lists "California Northern District Court, case 3:17-cv-00075" twice. The W.D.N.C. docket in 3:15-cv-00610 contains a motion to consolidate with "3:17-CV-00075-FDW-DCK" — and "FDW-DCK" maps to W.D.N.C. judges (Frank D. Whitney / David C. Keesler), not N.D. Cal. So Google's "California Northern District" label appears mis-assigned; the case is more likely a W.D.N.C. matter. Either way, I could not confirm that 3:17-cv-00075 asserted the '247 patent. Verify before citing.
2. The three earlier-generated summary sections state the following, which I can now correct/confirm: (a) the prior summary could not identify the independent claims — the PTAB FWD confirms claims 1, 25, and 31 are independent and quotes claim 1 in full; (b) the prior summary listed IPR2017-01900 and IPR2017-01901 as targeting this patent — that is incorrect; those proceedings (filed July 31, 2017, FWD March 8, 2019) challenged US 9,478,110, not the '247 patent. Only IPR2016-00898 and -00899 challenged the '247.
3. Current status of D. Or. 3:17-cv-01356 is unverified. Given that every asserted patent was cancelled by the PTAB and those cancellations were affirmed, the case almost certainly terminated, but I have not retrieved a dismissal, judgment, or stipulation. Check PACER.
4. No third-party/NPE litigation exists. Only the patent owner has asserted it. The patent's Google Patents status is "Expired – Fee Related," with anticipated expiration 2026-12-14.
5. No 2026 docket activity found. Consistent with the previous analysis, I found nothing in 2026 for this patent on either the CAFC or district court side. This should still be confirmed against the CAFC docket and USPTO PatentCenter directly.

Sources

• https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1475894](/patent/1475894)/download-documents (IPR2016-00899 petition; confirms '247 patent, W.D.N.C. 3:15-cv-00610, MTI Holdings RPI)
• https://mtigs.com/wp-content/uploads/IPR2016-00898899-Final-Written-Decision.pdf (consolidated FWD, claims 1–37 unpatentable; quotes claim 1)
• https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[554474](/patent/554474)/rpx-ptab/IPR2016-00898/IPR2016_00898_P35_Notice_of_Appeal_5eada1d2abe4c35c99ba834e48d7e450.pdf (InVue notice of appeal, Nov. 30, 2017)
• https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4598031](/patent/4598031)/invue-security-products-inc-v-mobile-tech-inc/ and http://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1236.Rule_36_Judgment.3-8-2019.1.pdf (Rule 36 affirmance)
• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Oregon%20District%20Court/case/3:17-cv-01356 (transfer from W.D.N.C. 3:15-cv-00610; consolidation orders)
• https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[6146522](/patent/6146522)/invue-security-products-inc-v-mobile-tech-inc/ (W.D.N.C. docket)
• https://dockets.justia.com/docket/oregon/ordce/3:2018cv01720/[140548](/patent/140548) (S.D. Ind. 1:18-cv-02653 → D. Or. 3:18-cv-01720 → consolidated)
• https://www.iniplaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/366/2018/08/Invue-v-MobileTech-Complaint.pdf (identifies '247 as asserted in 3:17-cv-01356-SI)
• https://www.vitallaw.com/news/patent-w-d-n-c-alice-test-could-not-be-applied-to-security-system-patents-before-claim-construction/... and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/3:2015cv00610/81300/31/ (Apr. 14, 2016 §101 ruling)
• https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9269247-0 (NPE database entry)
• https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/3:2019cv00407/[144145](/patent/144145)/37/0.pdf (3:19-cv-00407 — '787/'954 only, excluded)

I'll start by verifying the discrepancy between the structured ODP block (no AIA trials) and the family-litigation data on the patent page, then pull claim-level outcomes.

Now let me verify the other PTAB numbers listed on the patent page and get the FWD's claim-level detail.

Now let me check the remaining related IPR numbers (to avoid misattributing them), the 2019 CAFC appeal 19-1779, and the post-judgment status.

⚠️ Source conflict — read first

The structured block in this prompt says the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 9,269,247. That is wrong, or at least incomplete. Web research confirms two AIA trials on this exact patent (IPR2016‑00898 and IPR2016‑00899), both instituted, both decided by Final Written Decision, both appealed. ODP's index evidently does not reach trials terminated in 2017–2019, and the absence is an indexing artifact, not a signal.

Two corrections to the previously-generated summary, both material:

1. The petitioner was Mobile Tech, Inc. (d/b/a Mobile Technologies Inc. / "MTI") and MTI Holdings, LLC — not Unified Patents. The Google Patents line "Petitioner: 'Unified Patents PTAB Data'" is a data-attribution/licensing label for the litigation dataset Unified donated, not the name of the petitioner. Unified Patents filed no IPR against this patent.
2. Google Patents also lists IPR2017‑01900 and IPR2017‑01901 on this patent's page. Those are misattributed. Both concern US 9,478,110 B2, a different family member. Do not cite them as '247 proceedings.

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trial proceedings were filed against US 9,269,247, both by Mobile Tech, Inc./MTI Holdings: both instituted, both resolved by Final Written Decision holding all 37 claims unpatentable, and both affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2019‑03‑08. Bottom line for a defendant: there is no defensive posture left to argue about — every claim of this patent (1–37, including all three independents, 1, 25, and 31) was canceled. A demand letter citing US 9,269,247 is asserting a patent with no live claims; the only question is whether the letter instead cites a surviving family member (it probably does — see Strategic summary).

The two proceedings were consolidated by the Board under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) for purposes of a single Final Written Decision (78 pages), so there is one operative merits document covering all 37 claims.

IPR2016‑00898 — Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2016‑04‑14 (petition); institution decision 2016‑09‑29
• Status (verbatim from structured/aggregator data): "Final Written Decision" — gloss: terminated, all challenged claims held unpatentable, judgment affirmed on appeal.
• Judge panel: Per the FWD caption itself — Justin T. Arbes, Stacey G. White, and Daniel J. Galligan, with Arbes writing. Aggregators (Patexia, Docket Alarm) also list Howard B. Blankenship and attribute authorship to Blankenship; that conflicts with the face of the FWD. Treat the FWD caption (Arbes/White/Galligan, Arbes authoring) as controlling and the aggregator panel data as unreliable.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1–24; asserted art Rothbaum (US 5,543,782), Ott (US 6,380,855), Denison (US 2004/0201449 A1), Sedon (US 2005/0073413 A1), Belden (US 2007/0159328 A1, the publication of the '102 application). Statutory bases: § 102(b) anticipation by Belden; § 103(a) over Belden+Sedon, Rothbaum+Denison, and Rothbaum+Denison+Ott. Petitions certified as within the § 315(b) one-year window from service of the W.D.N.C. complaint (3:15‑cv‑00610).
• Institution decision: Instituted 2016‑09‑29 on certain grounds. I was not able to retrieve the verbatim institution list in this session; the FWD's pending-grounds table identifies the grounds that survived to decision (Belden anticipation; Belden+Sedon; Rothbaum+Denison; Rothbaum+Denison+Ott), and the FWD expressly notes trial was instituted "on certain grounds of unpatentability."
• Final Written Decision (2017‑09‑28), claim-level:
  • Rothbaum + Denison, § 103(a): claims 1 and 3–37 unpatentable. Claim 2 required a third reference and was held unpatentable over Rothbaum + Denison + Ott, § 103(a).
  • Belden, § 102(b): Petitioner LOST. The Board held claims 1, 3–34, 36, and 37 were entitled to the '102 application's 2006‑12‑14 filing date via written-description support, so Belden is not prior art to those claims, and the anticipation ground failed. Key reasoning: the '102 application "conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of its filing date, the inventors were in possession of the inventions recited in claims 1, 3–34, 36, and 37."
  • Belden + Sedon, § 103(a) (claims 2 and 35): Petitioner LOST on claim 35 ("not prior art to claim 35… has not shown… claim 35 would have been obvious based on Belden and Sedon"). Claim 2's Belden+Sedon ground was not reached because claim 2 fell on Rothbaum+Denison+Ott.
  • Disposition ordered: "claims 1‑37 of the '247 patent have been shown to be unpatentable"; Patent Owner's Motions to Exclude denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part.
• Settlement / termination: None. Fully litigated to FWD.
• Appeal: Yes — by the patent owner. InVue filed notice of appeal; the appeals were docketed as CAFC Nos. 2018‑1236, 2018‑1238, 2018‑1239, and 2018‑1304 (consolidated), presenting the Board's §§ 102/103 rulings. Judgment 2019‑03‑08, per curiam (Dyk, Wallach, Stoll) — AFFIRMED (Fed. Cir. R. 36). Opinion: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4598031](/patent/4598031)/invue-security-products-inc-v-mobile-tech-inc/
• Defensive value: Maximal. The independent apparatus claim 1 — the claim most likely to appear in an infringement chart — is canceled, as are claims 3–24. Any infringement theory built on claim 1 today is baseless.

IPR2016‑00899 — Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016‑04‑14 (petition); institution decision 2016‑09‑29
• Status (verbatim): "Final Written Decision" — terminated; claims 25–37 held unpatentable; affirmed on appeal.
• Judge panel: Same as ‑898 — Arbes, White, Galligan (Arbes writing), per the consolidated FWD caption.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 25–37 — i.e., the method claims, including independent claims 25 and 31. Grounds as pleaded: Ground 1 — Belden anticipates claims 25–34 and 36–37 under § 102; Ground 2 — Belden + Sedon render claim 35 obvious under § 103(a); Ground 3 — Rothbaum + Denison render claims 25–37 obvious under § 103(a). The petition also mounted a priority attack, arguing the challenged claims were not entitled to the filing dates of the related applications (which would have made Belden — InVue's own earlier publication — prior art).
• Institution decision: Instituted 2016‑09‑29 on certain grounds; verbatim institution list not retrieved in this session.
• Final Written Decision (2017‑09‑28), claim-level:
  • Rothbaum + Denison, § 103(a): claims 25–37 unpatentable (folded into the consolidated holding that "claims 1 and 3‑37 are unpatentable over Rothbaum and Denison").
  • Belden, § 102(b) / Belden+Sedon, § 103(a): Petitioner LOST the priority fight. The Board rejected the written-description attack, holding the '102 application supported the "arming … upon a matching" limitation and supported communication of the security code beyond wireless: "We are persuaded, therefore, that the '102 Application provides sufficient written description support for arming the security device upon a matching… as recited in claims 1, 25, and 31." Belden therefore was not prior art, and both Belden-based grounds failed.
  • Net effect: the patent died anyway — but on Rothbaum + Denison, not on InVue's own Belden publication.
• Settlement / termination: None.
• Appeal: Consolidated into the same 2018‑1236/-1238/-1239/-1304 appeal; AFFIRMED 2019‑03‑08.
• Defensive value: The method claims 25–37 — often the claims a patent owner asserts against a user or installer of accused systems — are canceled. Note the priority/§ 102 attack on Belden failed: if you were planning to dust off "InVue's own publication anticipates its own claims," that argument has already been made, briefed, and rejected by the Board and not disturbed on appeal.

Strategic summary

Claims status. All 37 claims of US 9,269,247 — independent claims 1, 25, and 31 and every dependent claim — were held unpatentable in the consolidated FWD of 2017‑09‑28, and that judgment was affirmed without opinion on 2019‑03‑08. There are no surviving claims and no untested claims on this patent. (I did not independently verify the § 318(b) certificate of cancellation in this session; it follows as a matter of course from the affirmance. Separately, Google Patents shows legal status "Expired – Fee Related" with anticipated expiration 2026‑12‑14 — that is an aggregator artifact and should not be read as meaning any claim remained in force.)

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel runs only against MTI/MTI Holdings and their privies — not against an unrelated defendant. Practical consequence: the usual "could I have raised this in an IPR?" analysis does not constrain you. But you also do not need an IPR. With a final judgment of unpatentability affirmed on appeal, the patent has no enforceable claims, and a § 282 invalidity defense in district court is straightforward. If you do want a PTAB record of your own (e.g., for a fee-shifting or § 285 narrative), the ‑898/‑899 record is fully public and the Rothbaum + Denison combination carried the day on all 37 claims — that is the combination to lead with.

Pattern signals — this is the important part for a defendant today. MTI ran a coordinated, multi-patent IPR campaign against the InVue merchandise-security family, and largely won:

• '247 (this patent): IPR2016‑00898/-00899 → claims 1–37 unpatentable, affirmed.
• US 8,884,762: IPR2016‑00892 → claims 1–27 unpatentable (FWD 2017‑09‑28).
• US 9,135,800: IPR2016‑00895 and IPR2016‑00896 (parent of this patent).
• US 7,737,846: IPR2016‑01241 → FWD 2017‑12‑19.
• US 7,737,844: IPR2016‑01915 → FWD 2018‑03‑28 — the Board found for the patent owner on at least one mechanical-switch claim, i.e., this is the one family member that partially survived.
• US 9,396,631: IPR2017‑00344 / ‑00345 → FWD 2018‑05‑24.
• US 9,478,110: IPR2017‑01900 / ‑01901 → claims 1–36 unpatentable (FWD 2019‑02‑12/03‑08 window), which InVue also appealed.

InVue appealed repeatedly (the consolidated 2018 appeal and later appeals) but did not obtain reversal on the '247. The InVue v. Mobile Tech litigation (W.D.N.C. 3:15‑cv‑00610, consolidated and transferred to D. Or. 3:17‑cv‑01356) was the driver of the whole campaign; the CAFC dockets surfaced in this research are 2018–2019 vintage, including the consolidated 2018‑1236 et al. appeal and 2019‑1779. I was unable to verify in this session what 2019‑1779 concerned or its disposition — treat that as unconfirmed, not as "no activity." I found no 2026 appellate activity on this patent.

Critical caveat for any defendant: InVue has an extensive continuation family that issued after the '247 and was not part of the ‑898/‑899 judgments — including US 9,576,452; 9,659,472; 10,003,867; 10,403,122; 10,600,313; 11,721,198; and US 12,205,457. Winning on the '247 does nothing for you on those. If you have received a demand letter, confirm which patent number is actually being asserted. If it is genuinely the '247, the letter is meritless. If the letter cites the '247 only as a family representative, the real fight is a different number.

Recommended next steps

1. If a demand letter or complaint cites US 9,269,247, quote the disposition directly. The operative document is the consolidated Final Written Decision of 2017‑09‑28 (78 pages, IPR2016‑00898 & ‑00899): "ORDERED that claims 1‑37 of the '247 patent have been shown to be unpatentable." Public copies: https://mtigs.com/wp-content/uploads/IPR2016-00898899-Final-Written-Decision.pdf and Docket Alarm's PTAB docket for IPR2016‑00898.
2. Cite the affirmance. InVue Sec. Prods. Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., Nos. 2018‑1236, ‑1238, ‑1239, ‑1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019‑03‑08) (per curiam, Dyk, Wallach, Stoll), AFFIRMED — https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4598031/invue-security-products-inc-v-mobile-tech-inc/
3. Separate the '247 from the family. Before anyone drafts a § 285 motion or a covenant-not-to-sue position, identify whether the asserted claim set comes from a post-2017 continuation (e.g., US 11,721,198 or US 12,205,457). Those are live, untested territory.
4. No PTAB milestones to track. There are no pending AIA proceedings on this patent — no institution deadline, no oral hearing, no FWD due date. The § 316(a)(11) one-year clock on IPR2016‑00898/-00899 ran out on 2017‑09‑28. The absence of any 2020–2026 IPR is explained by the patent being dead, not by the patent being strong.
5. Correct the record internally. If your docket-watch or ODP-based tooling reports "no PTAB activity" for US 9,269,247, that tooling is blind to pre-2018 trials. Do not let it produce a "this patent has never been challenged" conclusion — that would be the opposite of the truth here.

I'll search for the assignment record and related ownership evidence before writing.

Sourcing note: I could not retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center / Assignment Search record for US 9,269,247 in this session — the searches surfaced secondary aggregators, not the reel/frame record itself. I therefore do not invent reel/frame numbers below. Everything that follows is grounded in the patent record itself (Google Patents legal events), the Unified Patents portal assignee fields, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, and docket documents, each cited.

Inventors

Determination basis: application 14/825,436 was filed 2015‑08‑13 by InVue as applicant/assignee, and InVue is the only assignee of record shown anywhere in the record (Google Patents, "Original Assignee" and "Current Assignee" both = InVue Security Products Inc.; Unified Patents portal for US 2015/0348381 A1 lists "Parent Company: Invue Security Products Inc."). No separate inventor→third‑party assignment surfaced.

Pattern notes:

• No evidence of inventor departure within 12 months of filing. To the contrary, the inventor group is long‑tenured at InVue: Grant and Fawcett appear on later InVue applications in the same product space (e.g., US 10,127,745; US 10,533,344; and an InVue assignment recorded 2019‑03‑12 for app 16/274,538 — Plainsite, USPTO Assignment 48572/419 — naming Grant, Taylor, Schultz, Fawcett, McKinney, Burmeister and Sankey). That is the opposite of the "all inventors bolt" fire‑sale precursor.
• Contributor caveat: I cannot verify from the sourced text which of the five were original inventors on the 2005‑priority provisional/nonprovisional versus added in the 2011 CIP. Do not read the list above as a per‑filing inventorship determination.

Original assignee

InVue Security Products Inc. (Charlotte, NC; corporate address in assignment records given as 15015 Lancaster Highway, Charlotte, NC 28277, with a second address 9201 Baybrook Lane, Charlotte, NC 28277 appearing in a 2019 InVue recording).

• Primary line of business: physical retail merchandise‑security hardware and systems — alarm modules, display stands, sensors, recoilers/alarming cables, cabinet and fixture locks, and the "OneKEY" electronic‑key ecosystem with Access Manager software (InVue product literature, invue.com; complaint descriptions in InVue v. Mobile Tech, D. Or. 3:19‑cv‑00407, describing the parties as competing "in the manufacture and sale of retail merchandise security systems").
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, on the evidence available. The patent's own commercial target is InVue's programmable‑key/alarm‑module product line, and InVue's later patents in the same family (US 10,127,745; US 10,533,344; US 11,721,198; US 12,205,457) claim the serial‑number/electronic‑key portion of that same product line. InVue's D. Or. pleadings describe its own commercial security systems, and its 2019 suit was a product‑vs‑product competitor case.
• Current status: Operating. InVue continued to prosecute and receive patents in this family through at least 2025 (US12205457B2, per the priority chain in the supplied full text), which is inconsistent with a wound‑down or shell assignee.
• Financial‑distress signals: None found. I did not locate any SEC 10‑K/8‑K for InVue (it appears not to be a US reporting public company), so I cannot rule out private financing events; absence of an SEC record is not evidence of solvency either way.

Reconciliation flags against the previously generated section:

1. That section listed Int'l classes as "E05B45/06; G08B13/12; G08B13/14; G08B13/24; G08B25/00" and asserted "one aggregator (Unified Patents portal) lists 2005‑12‑22." The authoritative full text supplied here classifies this patent under G08B25/00, G07C9/00 / 9/00309 / 2009/00507 / 2009/00539, G08B13/00, 13/02, 13/12, 13/14, 13/1445, 13/1463, 13/22, 13/24, 13/2402, 13/2428, 13/2434, 13/2465, 13/2482 — no E05B subclass appears. Treat the E05B list as unsupported by the authoritative text. The 2005‑12‑22 vs 2005‑12‑23 priority discrepancy is real and is carried forward literally.
2. That section wrote "US 12,205,457"; the full text's priority chain says US12205457B2. Minor identifier discrepancy — reporting literally, not correcting.
3. That section described Unified Patents as the IPR petitioner. Per the supplied page, the line reads Petitioner: "Unified Patents PTAB Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License — that is a data‑attribution/licensing notice, not an identification of the petitioner. It should not be read as "Unified Patents filed the IPR." Separate record evidence shows Mobile Tech, Inc. was the petitioner against sibling patent US 9,396,631 (IPR2017‑00344/‑00345, Final Written Decision, Docket Alarm). I could not verify the petitioner identity for IPR2016‑00898/‑00899 or IPR2017‑01900/‑01901 and do not guess.

Assignment timeline

Plainly stated: I could not obtain the Assignment Center record for this patent in this session, so I cannot list recorded conveyances, reel/frame numbers, execution dates, recording dates, or the correspondent of record for US 9,269,247. I am not going to reconstruct them.

What the accessible record does show:

• Google Patents legal events for US 9,269,247 list only the chain's prosecution events — priority claims, filing 2015‑08‑13, publication 2015‑12‑03, grant 2016‑02‑23, subsequent continuations' priority claims through 2025 — and no assignment, security‑agreement, merger, name‑change or license record.
• Google Patents assignee fields show "Original Assignee: InVue Security Products Inc." and "Current Assignee: InVue Security Products Inc.", with the caveat that Google expressly disclaims having performed an assignment analysis.
• Unified Patents portal entry for US 2015/0348381 A1 independently shows InVue as both original assignee and parent company.

Net finding on the ownership chain: no post‑issuance transfer of US 9,269,247 is evidenced in any source I could reach. On the available record, the patent remains with the operating original assignee, InVue Security Products Inc. This should be re‑run against the Assignment Center by patent number (and by application 14/825,436) before being relied on for diligence, because a negative finding from an unretrieved record is weak evidence.

One directly relevant correspondent data point (different patent, same assignee): InVue assignment recorded 2019‑03‑12, reel 48572/0419, app 16/274,538 ("Alarming Cables, Assemblies, And Systems"), assignors Grant/Taylor/Schultz/Fawcett/McKinney/Burmeister/Sankey → Invue Security Products Inc., 15015 Lancaster Highway, Charlotte, NC 28277, correspondent: Invue Security Products Inc., 9201 Baybrook Lane, Charlotte, NC 28277 (Plainsite assignment id 8933531). In other words, InVue self‑records its assignments in‑house — there is no repeat‑player NPE attorney visible on InVue's recordings. That is a meaningful absence of the strongest shell‑entity tell.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9269247
    2005 : Provisional filed Dec 23
    2006 : Nonprovisional filed Dec 14
         : Assignee of record InVue
    2015 : Continuation filed Aug 13
         : Application published Dec 3
    2016 : Patent issues Feb 23
         : IPRs filed against this patent
    2017 : InVue sues Mobile Tech D Or
    2018 : Federal Circuit appeals filed
    2026 : Statutory term ends Dec 14

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No licensing‑only LLC appears anywhere in the record: Google Patents shows Original and Current Assignee both as InVue Security Products Inc., and the Unified Patents portal lists InVue as parent company. A patent that had been flipped to a shell would ordinarily show a new assignee in at least one aggregator's assignee field. Caveat: because I did not retrieve the Assignment Center reel/frame list, this is a well‑supported negative, not a verified one.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, or Spangenberg entities appear in the assignee, plaintiff, or IPR records for this patent. Stanford's NPE Litigation Database lists the sole case as InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., 3:17‑cv‑01356 (D. Or.), with the asserter category recorded as "8 Product company" — i.e., the database classifies InVue as an operating company, not an NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present on the evidence available (unclear as to this patent). I have exactly one correspondent data point in the InVue family — reel 48572/0419 (recorded 2019‑03‑12, app 16/274,538), where the correspondent is InVue Security Products Inc. itself at 9201 Baybrook Lane, Charlotte, NC. One appearance on a different patent is not recurrence, so no finding. There is no correspondent attorney of record I can cite for US 9,269,247.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No chain of LLC‑to‑LLC assignments exists in the record at all; the only ownership movement evidenced is inventor→InVue, which is the ordinary employment/prosecution assignment, not a cascade.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment is evidenced within six months before the 2017 D. Or. filing. The plaintiff in that case is the original assignee of record, so the chain was not arranged to manufacture standing or venue.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present / unclear. No bankruptcy proceeding involving InVue was found, and no transfer to a liquidation vehicle appears. I also found no SEC reporting for InVue, so I cannot fully reconstruct its capital history from public filings. Note the family's continued issuance through 2025 (US12205457B2) argues against a distressed wind‑down.
7. Privateering — not present, and the inverse is arguably true. The one assertion campaign on this family is InVue v. Mobile Tech — an operating company suing a direct competitor ("InVue and MTI compete in the manufacture and sale of retail merchandise security systems," D. Or. 3:19‑cv‑00407, Dkt. 37). That is classic operating‑company assertion, not privateering. The inverted signal is that this patent was itself attacked — IPR2016‑00898, IPR2016‑00899, IPR2017‑01900, IPR2017‑01901 (all with final written decisions per the Google Patents litigation links), plus sibling‑patent IPRs Mobile Tech v. InVue IPR2017‑00344/‑00345 on US 9,396,631, and Federal Circuit appeals 18‑1236, 18‑1238, 18‑1239 and 19‑1779. Multiple validity challenges are a feature of contested competitor litigation, not of NPE acquisition.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN. Note again that Unified Patents' name appears in this patent's Google Patents metadata purely as a licensed data provider; no Unified Patents acquisition or ownership interest in US 9,269,247 was found.

Additional status observation (flagged as inference, not record): Google Patents reports legal status "Expired – Fee Related" as of the 2026‑09‑30 fetch, with anticipated expiration 2026‑12‑14 and a "First worldwide family litigation filed" darts‑ip entry. Those two facts sit awkwardly together: a patent that reaches its statutory 20‑year date on 2026‑12‑14 would normally read "Expired – Lifetime" or simply "Expired," not "Expired – Fee Related." The most plausible reading is that the 7.5‑year maintenance fee window (due 2023‑08‑23, grace to 2024‑02‑23) was not paid, so the patent lapsed roughly February 2024 while the statutory date continued to display. If so, the lapse is consistent with the original operating assignee abandoning enforcement of the older 2005‑priority family while continuing to patent and enforce newer families. I could not confirm this, and it should be checked against the USPTO maintenance‑fee record before use.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the patent record shows Original and Current Assignee as InVue Security Products Inc. (issue date 2016‑02‑23), a real manufacturer of retail merchandise‑security systems — as its own competitor‑litigation pleadings confirm — and the single assertion of this patent is InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., 3:17‑cv‑01356 (D. Or.) against a direct competitor, with Stanford's NPE Litigation Database recording the asserter as a "Product company" (category 8); the resulting Federal Circuit appeals (18‑1236, 18‑1238, 18‑1239, 19‑1779) are competitor‑litigation appeals rather than NPE collection appeals. I found no post‑issuance assignment of any kind — no shell LLC, no known asserter, no cascading LLC transfers, no pre‑litigation transfer, and no defensive‑aggregator acquisition — so signals 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 are affirmatively absent on the accessible record. Confidence caveat: this verdict rests on assignee fields, legal events and docket records; I did not retrieve the Assignment Center reel/frame list for this patent, so the negative on post‑issuance transfers should be verified at USPTO Assignment Center or Assignment Search searching patent 9,269,247 and application 14/825,436 before any transaction relies on it.

I'll search for the patent's cited references and the prior art identified in the PTAB record.

Now let me get details on the specific prior-art references of record and the patent's own citation list.

Prior Art Analysis — US 9,269,247 B2

Scope note (important). You asked me to pull the patent's own citation list from the USPTO database and analyze each reference. I ran searches against Google Patents' full text of US 9,269,247 (fetched 2026‑09‑30) and the PTAB record. Two limitations must be stated up front rather than papered over:

1. The authoritative full text supplied for this patent is truncated. It ends mid‑Background section — it does not contain the front‑page "References Cited" list, the claim set, or the examiner's cited art. I therefore cannot reproduce the face‑of‑patent citation list verbatim, and I will not invent one.
2. What I can give you with confidence is the prior art of record in the invalidation proceedings that actually disposed of this patent — the IPR2016‑00898 / ‑00899 exhibits — plus the patent documents the specification itself incorporates by reference. These are the references that matter, because they are the ones that were applied against the claims.

Per the operating rule, all identifiers below are reproduced literally as found, not normalized.

1. The references that actually decided this patent (PTAB exhibit record)

Every one of these was applied against US 9,269,247 in the consolidated Final Written Decision of IPR2016‑00898 and IPR2016‑00899, dated September 28, 2017:

2. Documents cited in the specification (incorporated by reference)

The '247 patent's description expressly incorporates three commonly‑owned, co‑pending InVue applications. These are not prior art to the '247 patent — they are the same inventive family, filed the same day — but they are the "citations" that appear on the face of this patent:

The '247 specification also refers to "a magnetic key of the type shown and described in United States Patent Application Publication No. …" — the number is cut off in the supplied text, so I cannot report it. Given the Sedon reference's subject matter (magnetically/key‑operated alarm switching), 2005/0073413 is a plausible candidate, but I did not verify that identification and you should not rely on it.

3. The critical nuance on §102 vs. §103

You asked specifically which claims each reference potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The honest answer, from the record, is: under §102, none of them. The petitioner was explicit about this in the ’247 petition:

"Rothbaum and Denison are 102(b)-type prior art references regardless of priority. But unlike Belden, neither Rothbaum nor Denison renders any of the claims of the '247 Patent invalid based on anticipation. Instead, Rothbaum plus Denison render the claims obvious."

So the mapping is:

• §102(b) anticipation — asserted, but defeated. Only Belden (2007/0159328) was asserted to anticipate claims 25–34 and 36–37. The Board rejected it: because the '102 Application (which published as Belden) conveyed with reasonable clarity that the inventors possessed the claimed subject matter, claims 1, 3–34, 36 and 37 were entitled to the 2006‑12‑14 filing date, making Belden's 2007‑07‑12 publication not prior art. The same reasoning defeated the Belden+Sedon §103 theory on claim 35.
• §102(b) art used only in §103 combinations. Rothbaum and Denison are both §102(b)-type art, but were applied only as an obviousness combination, not as anticipatory references on their own.
• §103(a) — sustained.
  • Rothbaum + Denison → claims 1 and 3–24 (‑00898) and claims 25–37 (‑00899) unpatentable.
  • Rothbaum + Denison + Ott → claim 2 unpatentable.
• Net result: the Board held "claims 1–37 of the '247 patent are unpatentable." InVue appealed (Notice of Appeal 2017‑11‑30, raising Oil States); the Federal Circuit affirmed, Rule 36, per curiam, 2019‑03‑08 (Appeal 2018‑1236, consolidated with 2018‑1238, 2018‑1239). No claim of US 9,269,247 survived.

If you want the "potential §102" reading anyway

For each reference, the only claims it could conceivably be argued to anticipate, on this record, are these — and I flag each as not established:

Bottom line on §102: no reference was ultimately held to anticipate any claim of US 9,269,247. The patent died entirely on §103(a) over Rothbaum + Denison (+ Ott for claim 2).

4. Internal flags and contradictions

• Contradiction carried forward and confirmed. An earlier‑generated section of this analysis listed IPR2017‑01900 and IPR2017‑01901 as challenging this patent. That is incorrect on the record I retrieved — only IPR2016‑00898 and ‑00899 challenged the '247 patent. The prior Litigation summary already flagged this; I confirm it.
• Reference‑number hazard. A search for "US 9,269,247" surfaces an unrelated US 8,460,247 B2 (IPR2017‑01588, Becton Dickinson v. B. Braun) and an unrelated US 9,269,247‑adjacent Darts‑IP family ID. Do not conflate. The identifier 8,460,247 is a different patent entirely.
• Dates I could not verify in this session: the filing/publication/issue dates of US 6,380,855 (Ott) and US 2005/0073413 (Sedon), and the issue data for US 7,737,845. I have retained the bare identifiers as printed and flagged these gaps rather than filling them.
• Expiry/status. Google Patents lists this patent as "Expired – Fee Related" with anticipated expiration 2026‑12‑14. Combined with the cancellation of all 37 claims, the prior‑art analysis above is now of historical/validity‑challenge interest rather than live‑infringement interest.

Sources

• Consolidated Final Written Decision, IPR2016‑00898 & IPR2016‑00899 (Sept. 28, 2017): https://mtigs.com/wp-content/uploads/IPR2016-00898899-Final-Written-Decision.pdf
• Companion FWD, IPR2016‑00892 (US 8,884,762; same Rothbaum/Denison/Ott/Sedon/Belden art): https://mtigs.com/wp-content/uploads/IPR2016-00892-Final-Written-Decision.pdf
• IPR2016‑00899 Petition (challenging claims 25–37; exhibit list, grounds, §102/§103 framing): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1475894](/patent/1475894)/download-documents
• InVue Notice of Appeal (Nov. 30, 2017; identifies Rothbaum, Denison, Ott): https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[554474](/patent/554474)/rpx-ptab/IPR2016-00898/IPR2016_00898_P35_Notice_of_Appeal_5eada1d2abe4c35c99ba834e48d7e450.pdf
• US 5,543,782 (Rothbaum): https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US5543782A](/patent/US5543782A) and https://www.vanguardprotexglobal.com/wp-content/Patents/05543782.pdf
• US 7,737,844 (programming station) full text: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b0/5b/70/7462696ec2aa0c/US7737844.pdf
• US 7,737,843 (programmable alarm module) full text: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6d/0e/cf/c8b7f4e7666633/US7737843.pdf
• US 2007/0159328 / app. 11/638,727 disclosure (Belden family): https://patents.justia.com/patent/20070146134
• US 9,269,247 full text: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9269247/en

I'll pull the prior-art record for the '247 patent — both the references cited on the face of the patent and the references the Board relied on — before running the §103 analysis.

I have the core prior-art record. Let me pull the exact independent claim text and the Board's claim-by-claim treatment, plus the face-of-patent references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,269,247 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Two housekeeping flags before the analysis:

1. Date contradiction. The system context for this session states today is 2026‑09‑30, but the task header states Current Date: April 26, 2026. I am not resolving this; I note it because the legal‑status and docket observations carried over from the prior sections were made against a 2026‑09‑30 fetch.
2. What "the Prior Art section of this page" actually contains. The authoritative Google Patents text supplied for US 9,269,247 contains no "References Cited" list. Its only prior‑art‑labelled content is (a) the search keywords (security, programmable, key, programming station, security code) and (b) a "Definitions" block that is simply verbatim specification text about retail alarm modules and mechanical/electrical/magnetic keys. The page as supplied is also truncated mid‑Background, before the claims. I therefore grounded the reference identification below in the PTAB record for this patent, which is the authoritative prior‑art record for it, and I flag every place where I am inferring rather than quoting.

I am not repeating the bibliographic, claim‑structure, or litigation findings from the earlier sections; where I build on them I say so.

1. The threshold problem that drives the entire §103 analysis: effective filing date

This is not a detail — it determines the size of the prior‑art universe.

The '247 patent's own Cross Reference chain runs: 14/825,436 ← 14/529,516 ← 14/254,244 ← 13/169,968 (a continuation‑in‑part, filed 2011‑06‑27, now abandoned) ← 12/770,321 ← 11/639,102 (filed 2006‑12‑14) ← provisional 60/753,908 (2005‑12‑23).

The Board expressly litigated this. Petitioner argued that the '102 application (which published as Belden, US 2007/0159328 A1) lacked written‑description support for two limitations — (i) arming "upon a matching," and (ii) "configured to communicate"/"providing the [unique] security code" — which would have pushed the challenged claims' effective date forward to the CIP filing of 2011‑06‑27, making the 2007 Belden publication § 102(b) prior art. The Board rejected that argument, found the '102 application did convey possession of claims 1, 3–34, 36 and 37 (and separately claim 35), and held Belden is not prior art to those claims. (FWD, § II.E)

Consequence for a fresh §103 analysis: Belden is simultaneously (a) the commercial embodiment described in this very patent and (b) a 2007 publication of the same family. It is the single most on‑point §102/§103 reference available against the '247 disclosure, and it is unavailable unless the patentee's benefit chain is broken. Any challenger's first move must be to attack the '102 written‑description support, claim by claim, using the CIP as the fulcrum.

2. The prior art

2.1 US 5,543,782 (Rothbaum) — primary reference; supplies the merchandise‑security/alarm half

Cited in the -898/-899 petitions as Ex. 1005 (note: exhibit numbering flips between the two petitions and across the family's other IPRs, so I do not attribute quotes to specific paragraphs). Rothbaum discloses:

• A retail merchandise security system — "a twelve jack security system 10 … which can protect twelve items of merchandise," with "a strip or housing 12" containing the circuitry. This supplies the "plurality of security devices" and their common controller.
• Attachment to merchandise with a sense loop: "Hard goods sensor 24, including a sensor housing 23, is attached to the article 22 … Item cord 28 is of sufficient length to connect the sensor 24 to the alarm circuitry in strip 12," and is coiled. This is the claim 3/4 attachment cable and the claim 1 "configured to be attached to an item of merchandise."
• Alarm on integrity loss: "When an alarm condition occurs, i.e., either by removing sensor plug 34 from jack 36, by cutting sensor cable 28, or by removing the sensor 24 from article 22, the alarm horn 126 will sound…." This is claim 1's "activate the alarm in response to the integrity of the security device being compromised" and claim 4's cutting/detaching limitation.
• Visual status indicators: the bi‑color LED per sensor circuit, green when armed, red on breach.
• Arming/disarming by key: "The security system 10 is activated by a switch means. For increased security, the preferred switch is a key switch 38 … switches the security system from a SET‑UP mode to the armed or ON mode. Key 40 activates key switch 38 and can be customized for each security system 10. Only authorized personnel should have access to key 40 to prevent the circumvention of the security system."
• Battery back‑up (battery 226) and tamper detection on the battery compartment.

Rothbaum therefore teaches almost the entire security‑device side, but with a mechanical key and no programming station, no programmable key, no stored security code.

2.2 US 2004/0201449 A1 (Denison) — secondary reference; supplies the electronic programming/key/code half

Cited as Ex. 1003 in the -898 petition. Denison discloses:

• Vending machine 20 with electronic lock 48 operated by electronic key 26; "The electronic lock can be unlocked if the key code it receives from the electronic key matches the key code stored in the memory of the lock."
• A programming station: external computing device 426 (a laptop) that programs the access code into the key through cradle 430.
• Random generation of the code: "the access code … is randomly generated."
• One code to many keys, and to many locks: "Each electronic key 26 has a key code 88 stored therein, and the same key code is stored in the memory 52 of the electronic lock in each vending machine to be operated with the electronic key"; "many keys with the same key code will be expected to communicate with many locks on different vending machines containing that key code."
• Field‑programmability / "learning": the lock "receives a key code transmitted from an electronic key, and stores the key code in a non‑volatile memory."
• Wireless communication: "The key 26 and the lock preferably communicate with each other wirelessly, which may be via an infrared or radio frequency (RF) channel. In a preferred embodiment … via infrared transmissions," via a "half‑duplex IRDA infrared communication interface 54."
• Key timers and use limits: a real‑time clock IC 94 and limit registers 200, with "operation limits [that] include, for example, time of data, date, number of days, number of accesses, number of accesses per day," which disable the key.
• Visual indicator on the key: LED 38.
• Stated advantages: electronic keys "cannot be copied as easily as conventional mechanical keys"; "significant reduction in the costs associated with managing the distribution of the keys … and the monitoring of the usage of the keys"; and "customized access limitations may be programmed by a supervisor into the electronic keys to restrict" their use.

2.3 US 6,380,855 (Ott) — tertiary; used only for dependent claim 2

I could not retrieve Ott's disclosure in this session. The FWD relies on it only to supply whatever additional limitation claim 2 recites, in the ground "Rothbaum + Denison + Ott." I will not guess at its subject matter.

2.4 US 2007/0159328 A1 (Belden) and US 2005/0073413 A1 (Sedon)

Belden was asserted under § 102(b) as anticipation against claims 1, 3–34, 36, 37 and rejected on the priority‑date ground above; the Belden + Sedon § 103 ground for claims 2 and 35 was therefore not reached. Both remain unavailable against the '247 absent a successful priority challenge.

3. Claims 1, 25 and 31 — the mapping

The FWD supplies claim 1 verbatim and quotes the operative language of claims 25 and 31. Two constructions matter:

• "upon a matching" — the Board held the gerund requires a causal relationship: arming/disarming as a result of the match, not merely coexistence.
• Claim 31 is broader than claims 1/25 on the code itself — claim 1 and claim 25 recite a "unique" security code; claim 31 recites "the security code" (no "unique"). An obviousness case that satisfies claim 1 a fortiori satisfies claim 31 on this point.

Claim 25 is the method counterpart of the same mapping: Denison supplies "generating a unique security code with a logic control circuit provided in a programming station," "providing the unique security code to each of a plurality of programmable keys," and "storing the unique security code at a plurality of security devices …"; Rothbaum supplies the merchandise‑attachment and alarm‑on‑breach elements; Denison supplies "arming or disarming each of the plurality of security devices upon a matching."

Claim 31 is the same with "the security code" for "the unique security code."

4. Motivation to combine — why a POSITA would have done this (KSR rationales)

The Board accepted, on the Allison declaration, four interlocking rationales. These are the strongest available and should be the backbone of any §103 position:

1. Same field, same problem. Both references address "protecting items/merchandise from theft" — Rothbaum in retail stores, hotels and businesses; Denison in unattended vending, ATMs, change machines, coin‑operated laundry and video arcades. Denison expressly frames its invention as solving "difficulties in managing the distribution and usage of keys to ensure the security of the locks." Rothbaum's own text — "Only authorized personnel should have access to key 40 to prevent the circumvention of the security system" — identifies exactly the problem Denison solves. That is a problem‑based motivation, not a hindsight one.
2. The known deficiency of the mechanical key. Both Rothbaum and the '247 patent's own Background concede the field used mechanical/electrical/magnetic keys, and Denison states "the mechanical keys may be copied or stolen easily, and the entire lock core of each of the vending machines affected has to be replaced in order to change to a different key," a "time‑consuming and very costly process." Denison's stated cure — electronic keys "cannot be copied as easily," plus key‑management cost reduction and supervisor‑programmable "customized access limitations" — is the predictable improvement of a known device by a known technique, squarely within KSR at 417.
3. Design incentive / market forces. Retail theft‑deterrence and key‑management cost are the same commercial pressures in both references.
4. Reasonable expectation of success. Implementing electronic keys in security devices was "well within the skill level" of a POSITA; the Board credited that Denison's own disclosure shows security systems using electronic keys were well‑known.

Anticipated counter‑argument (and why it failed below): Patent Owner argued a POSITA would not "venture out of the field of merchandise security systems with alarms to vending machines without alarm systems." The Board rejected that, finding the combination motivated by the benefits of electronic keys, and further held (citing Medichem / Winner Int'l) that added complexity does not negate motivation where the advantages outweigh it.

5. Grounds as actually adjudicated — the complete §103 picture

Key dependent‑claim findings in the record that a new analysis should carry forward:

• Claim 2 (attachment cable; via Ott) — unpatentable, but Ott must be located and its teaching verified; this is the one ground where I cannot yet show my work.
• Claim 3 — "a plurality of attachment cables, each … attached to one of the plurality of security devices": Rothbaum's hard goods sensor 24 / item cord 28 arrangement.
• Claim 4 — alarm activated "in response to cutting the attachment cable … or detaching the attachment cable": Rothbaum, verbatim.
• Claim 8 / claim 9‑type status indicators — Rothbaum's bi‑color per‑sensor LED (security device) and Denison's LED 38 (key). (I am reading these two from the parallel 9,396,631 FWD, where the claim text is verbatim; the '247's corresponding limitations are taught by the same references and I flag that inference.)
• Claims 26 / 32 — "wirelessly communicating" the code: Denison's IR/RF wireless and half‑duplex IRDA interface.
• Claims 27 / 33 (timer/counter inactivations) — Denison's real‑time clock IC 94 and limit registers 200 ("number of days, number of accesses"). Note that this is a prior‑art solution to the same problem the '247 patents as its "internal timer … 96 hours" and "counter" — meaning the '247's two headline features were disclosed element‑for‑element in Denison.
• Claims 29, 30, 34 — expressly held obvious over Rothbaum + Denison.
• Claim 35 — "arming the security device upon a matching": Denison's unlock‑on‑match plus Rothbaum's teaching to arm with a key (Rothbaum has no self‑closing door, so arming must be a deliberate key operation; a POSITA "would have been motivated to keep that functionality").
• Claim 37 — "permanently storing the security code at the security device": Denison's non‑volatile memory 52; the petition's construction argument is that the '247's own Fig. 13 shows the SDC can be deleted and replaced, so "permanently" means merely "indefinitely stored."

Every one of the 37 claims was held unpatentable. There is no surviving dependent claim to fall back on.

6. Parallel proceedings confirming the same combination

The same Rothbaum + Denison pairing invalidated the sibling claims in the same family, which materially strengthens the reasonableness of the combination:

• US 8,884,762 (IPR2016‑00892): claims 1, 5–20, 22–25, 27 obvious over Rothbaum + Denison; claims 2–4, 21, 26 over Rothbaum + Denison + Ott. (FWD)
• US 9,135,800 (IPR2016‑00895/‑00896): claims 1, 3–22, 24–30, 32–49 over Rothbaum + Denison; claims 2, 23 over Rothbaum + Denison + Ott. (FWD)
• US 9,396,631 (IPR2017‑00344/‑00345): claim 1 and claim 22 over Rothbaum + Denison. (FWD)
• US 7,737,846 (IPR2016‑01241): claim 1 anticipated by Denison alone; claims 2, 3 obvious over Denison alone; claim 9 over Rothbaum + Denison. (FWD)

The IPR2016‑01241 result is worth isolating: Denison alone was held to anticipate and render obvious claims of the '846 patent, which is the '247's own ancestor. That is close to a res judicata‑adjacent signal that Denison's electronic‑key provisioning chain is the operative teaching.

7. Where a §103 case would still be vulnerable

I want to be explicit about the soft spots rather than present this as a slam dunk:

1. Ott (US 6,380,855) is unverified. Claim 2 rests on it. If Ott's teaching postdates the operative date, or if claim 2's limitation is something Ott teaches only in a different field/embodiment, claim 2 could survive — and claim 2 is the only claim the Belden + Sedon alternative was ever aimed at.
2. Belden is a double‑edged sword. If a challenger succeeds in pushing the effective date to the 2011 CIP, Belden becomes § 102(b) art and the case gets easier. If the patentee holds the 2006 date, Belden is worthless and Sedon (US 2005/0073413 A1) is the only remaining backstop for claims 2 and 35 — and its teaching is untested in the '247 record.
3. "Permanently storing" (claim 37) is a construction fight, not an art fight. The Board's reasoning (and the petition's Fig. 13 argument) should be verified against the actual FWD language rather than taken from the petition.
4. The "unique" limitation. Patent Owner's expert in a sibling proceeding argued "not all random codes are unique" — that uniqueness depends on code range, number of generations, and precautions taken. That argument lost in the '247, but it is the most plausible remaining line and should be met head‑on with Denison's explicit random generation and the Board's construction.
5. Objective indicia. I found no evidence in the record of secondary considerations — no commercial success nexus, no long‑felt need, no failure of others, no copying — being proffered or weighed. If such evidence exists (InVue is a market participant, and the products are real), it was not before the Board and was not considered on appeal.
6. No 2026 activity. Consistent with the earlier sections, I found no 2026 district court or CAFC activity touching the '247. Given that claims 1–37 were cancelled and the cancellation was affirmed by Rule 36 on March 8, 2019 (CAFC 2018‑1236 consolidated with 2018‑1238/‑1239/‑1304), the §103 question for this patent is adjudicated and closed, and the patent is listed "Expired – Fee Related" with anticipated expiration 2026‑12‑14.

8. Bottom line

The obviousness case against US 9,269,247 is Rothbaum (US 5,543,782) in view of Denison (US 2004/0201449 A1), with Ott (US 6,380,855) added for claim 2. The rationale is a same‑field, same‑problem combination in which Rothbaum supplies the entire merchandise‑security architecture (multi‑device alarm system, merchandise attachment, sense loop, tamper‑responsive alarm, visual status indicators, key‑based arming) and Denison supplies the entire electronic provisioning architecture (a programming station that randomly generates a code, multiple programmable keys sharing that code, field‑programmable locks that learn the code, wireless IR/RF transfer, and key timers/limit registers keyed to elapsed days and access counts). Denison's own stated advantages — theft/copy resistance and disciplined key distribution — are the very deficiencies Rothbaum's text identifies, which supplies the motivation without hindsight; and the Board found, on credited expert testimony, a reasonable expectation of success.

Result below: claims 1–37 unpatentable; affirmed on appeal (Rule 36), March 8, 2019. Under the current record there is no valid claim of this patent.

Sources: Google Patents US9269247 · Consolidated FWD, IPR2016‑00898/‑00899 · FWD, IPR2016‑00898 (docketalarm) · IPR2016‑00899 Petition & claim charts · InVue Notice of Appeal, Nov. 30, 2017 · FWD, IPR2016‑00892 · FWD, IPR2016‑00895/‑00896 · FWD, IPR2017‑00344/‑00345 · FWD, IPR2016‑01241