US 9450956

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

US Patent 9,450,956 B1 — Summary

Method note / scope caveat: I searched public web indexes for the literal patent number 9450956 / US9450956B1. I did not obtain a live result set directly from USPTO Patent Center or from the CAFC docket system (PACER/CAFC) — those were not directly queryable here. What follows is grounded in (a) the Google Patents full text supplied in this session, and (b) third‑party patent databases (Unified Patents patent portal, RPX Insight, FreePatentsOnline, Justia, Golden wiki). Where these disagree, I flag it rather than silently reconciling.

Bibliographic data (high confidence)

Family / continuations (from Google Patents priority listings):

• This patent is a continuation of application 13/829,xxx line leading to US 8,918,854 B1 (issued 2014‑12‑23, Giobbi, same title) — 8,918,854 is the direct parent (its priority 2010‑07‑15 matches).
• Later filings claiming priority from 14/534,045: US 15/077,745 → US 10,313,336 B2; US 16/392,211 → US 11,546,325 B2; US 18/148,218 → US 2023/0134823 A1.
• Related sibling family (priority 2011‑02‑21) includes US 9,265,450 B1, US 10,217,339 B1, US 11,132,882 B1, US 11,113,482 B1, US 11,669,701 B2.

Abstract (as published)

"A system and method provide automatic access to applications or data. A portable physical device, referred to herein as a Personal Digital Key or 'PDK', stores one or more profiles in memory. In one embodiment, a biometric profile is acquired in a secure trusted process and uniquely associated with a user that is authorized to use and associated with the PDK. The PDK wirelessly transmits identification information including a unique PDK identification number, and optionally the biometric profile and a profile over a secure wireless channel to a reader. A computing device is coupled to the reader. An auto login server is coupled to the reader and the computing device and launches one or more applications associated with a user name identified by the received profile."

Specification overview (from the provided full text)

The disclosure is directed to a proximity-based authentication architecture: a Personal Digital Key (PDK) carries a tamper-proof PDK ID and one or more profiles (biometric, PIN, picture, registry). A Reader (or a reader 620 embedded in a computing device 120) detects the PDK within an adjustable, optionally directional "proximity zone." Authentication proceeds in layers: device authentication (challenge-response/CHAP, no profile needed) followed optionally by profile authentication (biometric via full-profile and short "profile sample" comparisons, PIN, photo, or registry lookup against Central Registry 114 / private registries 116a–b / validation database 112). An auto login server 220 (with device authentication module 1702, data retrieval module 1704, biometric authentication module 1706, access module 1708, credentials database 1710) performs automatic log-in/log-out and launches applications, and a tracking server 210 provides asset/person location tracking. FIGS. 18–22 cover automatic login, application access, launch identification, and locking the computing device when the PDK leaves the zone. Differentiation metrics (distance, location, duration) resolve which of several PDKs in the zone gets associated with a trigger.

Independent claims — plain language (moderate confidence)

⚠️ Caveat: The Google Patents text supplied in this session is truncated before the claims section, so I could not read the claim set from the authoritative document. The following is reconstructed from RPX Insight's "First Claim" listing and the Unified Patents PATROLL claim chart for US‑9450956‑B1, which agree with each other. Two independent sources agree, but I would verify against the printed patent before relying on exact wording.

Claim 1 — System with automatic access to information. A system with a first PDK tied to a first user who has a first user priority (the priority information travels with the PDK), plus a second PDK tied to a second user with a second user priority. A reader detects both PDKs inside its proximity zone. A shared computing device associated with the reader gives the first user access; then, when the second PDK is detected (one that wasn't present when the first user got access), the system grants the second user access to the shared computing device already in use by the first user and/or the first user's session — the decision being made by comparing the second user's priority against the first user's priority using the priority information carried in the two PDKs.

Claim 7 — Method for securing access to information. The same concept as a method: detect a first PDK (first user, first priority) in a reader's proximity zone; provide the first user access to the shared computing device; detect a second PDK (second user, second priority) that was non-present during the first detection; then provide the second user access to the shared computing device in use by the first user and/or the first user's session, based on the relative priority determination from the PDKs' priority information.

Claims 2–6 depend from claim 1; claims 8–20 depend from claim 7. (I could not independently verify the content of the dependent claims.)

Practical reading: In plain terms, the granted independent claims are narrower and more specific than the abstract suggests. They are directed to multi-user, priority-ranked takeover/hand-off of a shared computing session driven by proximity-detected PDKs — i.e., a higher-priority user approaching a shared terminal displaces or joins the lower-priority user's active session. The broad "PDK + reader + auto login server launches applications" disclosure in the abstract and specification supplies the supporting description.

Litigation and PTAB posture (as found)

• Proxense, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al, No. 6:25‑cv‑00016 (W.D. Tex.) — docketed as the case tied to this patent's Google Patents litigation link; defendants include Hyundai Motor America, Kia America, Inc., Kia Corporation, Genesis Motor America LLC; assigned to Chief Judge Alia Moses. Per the docket, a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed 2025‑04‑14 and the case shows as terminated 2025‑04‑15. Note: the complaint excerpt I found for this docket emphasizes other Proxense patents (US 11,095,640; US 10,073,960; US 9,251,332) rather than '956 itself, so I cannot confirm from the pleading text that '956 was actually asserted in that complaint.
• Unified Patents PATROLL contest for US‑9450956‑B1 ("Automatic Access to Applications and Data," $2,000 prize) ran 2025‑07‑11 to 2025‑08‑12 and a winner was announced (Sep. 22, 2025 insight post). The winning/featured submission charted KR‑100647374‑B1 (LG Electronics) — an RFID-tag multi-user "operating environment with user priority" reference — against claim 1. This signals an identified invalidity theory against the priority-based independent claims.
• No IPR/PGR or CAFC appeal specific to US 9,450,956 was found. The PTAB documents I retrieved involving Proxense concern other patents (e.g., the '042 hybrid-device patent in a Microsoft/Google petition; IPR2024‑01326). I found no 2026 CAFC docket entry for 9,450,956 and cannot confirm one exists — treat that as "not found," not as "confirmed absent."

Explicit uncertainty statement

• Not verified firsthand: the exact granted claim wording, the dependent claim content, and the current ownership/reassignment chain beyond the 2014 assignment record.
• Date discrepancies exist between sources (filing 11‑04 vs 11‑05; grant 09‑19 vs 09‑20; priority 07‑14 vs 07‑15; expiration 2031‑07‑13 vs 07‑14). I did not resolve these; they may reflect timezone handling or data-entry differences in the aggregator.
• No auto-correction applied. I interpreted 9450956 and US9450956B1 literally; search results returning unrelated hits for the PubMed identifier PMID 9450956 (a 1998 Mol Biol Cell paper) and other patents (e.g., US 9,546,021; US 9,265,450; US 10,217,339) were excluded as not being the requested patent.
• CAFC 2026: I have no authoritative confirmation of any Federal Circuit activity on this patent. If you need a definitive docket check, query PACER/CM‑ECF and the CAFC docket directly, plus USPTO Patent Center's "Litigation" tab for application 14/534,045.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 9450956. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into specific cases involving this patent number.

Let me verify the outcome of the Hyundai case and check for any other assertions of this specific patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,450,956

Patent: U.S. Patent No. 9,450,956 B1 ("Proximity-Based System for Automatic Application Initialization"), issued September 20, 2016; inventor John J. Giobbi; assignee Proxense, LLC; application no. 14/534,045.

Confirmed litigation

1. Proxense, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al.

Details: In this complaint, Proxense asserted four patents against the Hyundai-Kia-Genesis group over "Digital Key" technology implementing the Car Connectivity Consortium (CCC) Digital Key standard: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,073,960; 9,251,332; 9,450,956; and 11,095,640. The complaint described the '956 Patent as covering "systems and methods for automatic and secure authentication of users, wherein a first user is permitted access to a shared computing device in use by a second user based on determining a priority level relative to the second user." The '956 patent itself is identified as Exhibit 3 in the docket (Dkt. 1).

Sources:

• https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2025cv00016/1172820476
• https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/56504011/Proxense,_LLC_v_Hyundai_Motor_Company_et_al
• Complaint PDF: https://ipfray.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/25-01-14-Proxense-v.-Hyundai-KIA-Genesis-complaint.pdf
• https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/6:25-cv-00016/proxense-llc-v-hyundai-motor-co (status: "Closed")

2. Unified Patents PATROLL prior-art contest (defensive, not litigation per se)

The '956 patent was the subject of a Unified Patents PATROLL crowdsourcing contest (July 11 – August 12, 2025), which expressly stated the patent "has been asserted against Hyundai." On September 22, 2025, Unified awarded $2,000 to Jake Winter, Tanya Chauhan, and Vivek Yadav for prior-art submissions on the '956 patent.

Sources:

• https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/qj5oJJJE7kyz3aqXA
• https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2025/9/22/2000-awarded-for-proxense-authentication-patent-prior-art

Related Proxense campaign cases (do NOT appear to assert the '956 patent)

For completeness — and to avoid conflating patent numbers — Proxense has run a broader biometric-authentication campaign in the same district against other defendants, but the sources I found do not list U.S. 9,450,956 among the asserted patents in those suits:

• Proxense v. Samsung Electronics — 6:21-cv-00210 (W.D. Tex.) — settled/dismissed with prejudice 2023
• Proxense v. Google LLC — 6:23-cv-00320 (W.D. Tex.) — dismissed with prejudice (license) Jan. 13, 2025
• Proxense v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) — 6:23-cv-00319 (W.D. Tex.) — pending
• Proxense v. Apple Inc. — 6:24-cv-00143-ADA (W.D. Tex.) — pending
• Proxense v. Intel — 6:24-cv-00283 (W.D. Tex.)
• Proxense v. LG — a separate case concerning Digital Key technology

Those cases asserted patents such as 8,352,730; 8,886,954; 9,298,905; 10,698,989; 8,646,042; 9,049,188; 9,251,332; 10,073,960; and 11,095,640 — not '956.

Important caveats

• This is the only litigation I could confirm that actually asserts U.S. 9,450,956. The patent's Google Patents page independently links only one U.S. case — the Western District of Texas case 6:25-cv-00016 — which matches the Hyundai action above.
• I could not verify whether any IPR/PGR was filed specifically against the '956 patent. One USPTO PTAB petition document I retrieved lists "9450956" among a large string of patent numbers, but I could not confirm that this reflects a challenge to the '956 patent rather than a search/classification string, so I do not treat it as confirmed IPR activity.
• I hit my search-step limit before I could independently pull the exact Federal Rule 41 basis / prejudice status of the Hyundai voluntary dismissal; the docket shows a "NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal" (April 14, 2025) and case termination, but I could not confirm from PACER whether it was with or without prejudice.
• I found no CAFC appeal specifically involving the '956 patent.

Bottom line: As of the sources retrieved, the only identified litigation asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,450,956 is Proxense, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al., No. 6:25-cv-00016 (W.D. Tex., filed Jan. 14, 2025), which was voluntarily dismissed in April 2025 and closed.

I'll research this patent's PTAB history, starting with the canonical structured data and then verifying via web search.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US Patent 9,450,956 ("Proximity-based system for automatic application initialization")

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file against US 9,450,956. Per the structured PTAB block supplied (USPTO Open Data Portal, most recent ingest), the ODP returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding for this patent — and my live searches corroborated that: every Proxense IPR I could locate is directed to a sibling patent in the same family (U.S. 8,646,042; 8,886,954; 8,352,730; 9,298,905), not to the '956 patent. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore "claims are entirely untested at the PTAB — no estoppel, no cancellation, full claim set intact." That cuts both ways for a defendant: nothing has been killed for you, but nothing has been hardened either, and the absence of an IPR on a patent Proxense has actually asserted is a meaningful signal (discussed below), not a clean bill of health.

Important caveat: "no proceedings found" is a negative finding. I could not locate any proceeding number for the '956 patent, and the canonical structured data says none exist. I am not inventing proceeding numbers to fill the template. If a recently-filed petition exists but is not yet indexed, I did not surface it.

No proceedings to enumerate

Because the canonical list is empty, there is no institution decision, FWD, settlement, judge panel, or appeal to report for US 9,450,956 itself. Everything below is family/context evidence, clearly labeled as such, so you do not mistake a sibling-patent outcome for a ruling on your patent.

Family and assertion context (not '956 PTAB outcomes)

These are the adjacent data points a defendant should know, because Proxense litigates this portfolio as a block and the PTAB results on the siblings shape its leverage:

The '956 patent's Family has litigation link on Google Patents points to Proxense, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co. et al., No. 6:25-cv-00016 (W.D. Tex.), filed 2025-01-14, where the '956 patent was Exhibit 3 of four asserted patents (with U.S. 10,073,960; 9,251,332; 11,095,640). Proxense voluntarily dismissed that case on 2025-04-14 (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; docket shows termination). See the docket and complaint.

Strategic summary

1. Claim status on '956. No claim of US 9,450,956 has been canceled, confirmed, or even challenged in an AIA trial. There is no IPR Final Written Decision to point to — the '956 patent is, at the PTAB, a blank slate. Anyone who tells you "the '956 claims are dead" is conflating it with the '042 / '954 / '730 / '905 siblings. Do not cite the IPR2024-00573 FWD as invalidating anything in your case — it concerns a different patent number and a different claim set, and it would be sanction-bait to suggest otherwise.

2. Estoppel landscape. Because there is no petitioner on '956, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is nonexistent for this patent. There is no prior petitioner barred from raising art; there is no IPR-art record that a defendant must work around; and there is no risk of a § 315(b) one-year bar already having run for a party who served a complaint more than a year ago. Practically, that means a defendant facing a '956 demand letter today retains the full universe of prior art — including the art Unified Patents crowdsourced in 2025 (see below).

3. Pattern signals — and one loud one. Two things stand out:

• Unified Patents ran a PATROLL contest on this exact patent. Start 2025-07-11, close 2025-08-12, with $2,000 awarded 2025-09-22 to Jake Winter, Tanya Chauhan, and Vivek Yadav for prior art on at least claim 1 of US 9,450,956 (Unified announcement · PATROLL contest page). Unified states the patent "had been asserted against Hyundai," and a winning submission exists (PATROLL_Proxense_US9450956.pdf). Unified typically converts a successful PATROLL into an IPR or an ex parte reexam challenge to a non-practicing entity. The absence of a filed '956 IPR despite a funded prior-art hunt is best read as timing, not as a clean validity record — expect a '956 challenge to be filed or already filed-but-unindexed. (Note the precedent: in the sibling universe, "[t]he '336 Patent survived Unified Patents' ex parte reexam, based on Neibauer, without amendment or cancellation.")
• The patent owner litigates the same claim across many defendants sequentially. Proxense has sued Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Apple, LG, and Hyundai/Kia/Genesis, settling with Samsung, Google, and Intel while staying Apple/Microsoft. The '956 patent rode along in the Hyundai complaint, which was dismissed — consistent with a quick settlement/license.

4. Appeals. There is no Federal Circuit appeal concerning the '956 patent. Proxense's active appellate matter (opening brief filed ~2026-04-03, raising APA and claim-construction ("a third party that operates a trusted authority") challenges) arises from the '954 patent IPRs (IPR2024-00233 and IPR2024-00846), not '956 — see Proxense's appellate brief and ip fray coverage. That appeal could restore '954 claims, but it does nothing to '956.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the negative directly before relying on it. Pull the patent on PTAB E2E / PTAB Center and search the ODP for application 14/534,045 and patent 9,450,956. The structured ODP block says zero proceedings; confirm no petition has been filed since the last ingest. This matters because a live petition could carry a § 315(b) bar or a Fintiv discretionary-denial issue for your client.
2. If you're a defendant facing a '956 demand: the patent is fully intact and fully untested, so an IPR-based defense is a genuine option — but you are starting from scratch. The Unified PATROLL winning prior art on claim 1 is publicly downloadable (here) and is the obvious, low-cost starting point for a petition.
3. If your client is Hyundai/Kia/Genesis: the '956 assertion in No. 6:25-cv-00016 was voluntarily dismissed on 2025-04-14; confirm the terms (likely confidential) before assuming the patent is out of your life.
4. Watch for the shoe to drop. Given Unified's funded prior-art hunt (closed 2025-08) and Proxense's serial litigation, a '956 IPR filing is plausible. If one is filed, expect a statutory 1-year trial deadline from institution and standard PTAB milestones (POP/preliminary response, institution decision ~6 months from filing, FWD 12 months from institution). Monitor the PTAB docket and Unified Patents' filings for that number.
5. Do not import sibling outcomes. The three Proxense IPR FWDs that invalidated claims (IPR2024-00573 and the '954 proceedings) are persuasive context about how panels read this specification, but they are not rulings on the '956 claims and create no estoppel here. Use the '954 appellate record for claim-construction arguments ("trusted authority," "proximity zone," "access message received by an application") — those limitations appear in this family — but plead them as your arguments, not as established invalidity of the '956 patent.

Bottom line for a defendant: nothing is canceled, nothing is confirmed, and no petitioner is estopped — the '956 patent is a wide-open target carrying a documented, publicly-available prior-art lead from Unified's own contest. That is a materially more favorable position than facing a patent that survived two IPRs.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership history for US 9450956, starting with the authoritative patent text and cross-referencing assignment/litigation sources.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records, any security agreements, and the PATROLL/Unified Patents activity on this patent.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 9,450,956 B1

Patent: US 9,450,956 B1 — "Proximity-based system for automatic application initialization"
App. No.: 14/534,045 · Filed: 2014-11-05 · Issued: 2016-09-20 · Priority: 2010-07-15 · Anticipated expiration: 2031-07-14 · Status: Active

Record limitation (read first): The USPTO Assignment Center record for this patent exposes one assignment event. My retrieval of the Assignment Center pages did not return the reel/frame number or the correspondent field for that entry — those two fields are therefore marked as not exposed in retrieved sources rather than guessed. Everything else below is drawn from the assignment event as indexed on Google Patents legal events and corroborated by court/PTAB/trade sources. Verify the reel/frame and correspondent directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 9450956).

Inventors

• Giobbi is the only inventor on the '956 patent. Sibling members of the Proxense estate name additional inventors (e.g., David L. Brown, Fred S. Hirt, Ryan Gallivan, Kent Yundt on the '960 / '289 / '730 lines), so the single-inventor pattern on '956 is a family-specific fact, not a portfolio-wide one.
• No inventor-departure pattern. The classic fire-sale tell (all inventors gone within 12 months of filing) is absent: Giobbi remains the company's CEO and public face through the entire ownership history, including a 2026 interview in which he discusses the enforcement campaign. Inventor and assignee are effectively the same party throughout.

Original assignee

Proxense, LLC — Bend, Oregon (with a Pompano Beach, Florida address also appearing in Dun & Bradstreet listings).

• Shipped a product? Partially, and historically only. The company developed hardware/software around the Personal Digital Key (PDK) / receiver-decoder circuit (RDC) architecture and marketed a proximity platform ("TruProx") and a healthcare application suite ("ProxMED"). Its own 2021 litigation release states it "began to develop mobile payment technologies and commercial products, employing over thirty engineers, and investing many millions of dollars." However, a 2023 trade report (Biometric Update) noted the company had no working website and no publicly announced customers, and the 2016 letter described below concedes "there are no current licenses granted under the Proxense patents." No product embodying the '956 claims is identifiable in commerce today.
• Primary line of business at founding (2001/2005): proximity-based wireless identification, biometric authentication, access control and location tracking. Current line of business: patent licensing/enforcement.
• Current status: Operating (privately held), not acquired, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy, and still the record owner. It is publicly characterized as an NPE/PAE (see signals below).
• SIC 7371 / NAICS 5415 listings; headcount estimates range from 11–50 (Seamless/Adapt) to "25–100," with revenue estimates of $0–5M — the spread itself indicates little verifiable commercial activity.

Assignment timeline

One recorded assignment exists. The record does not show any subsequent transfer, and it does not show a recorded security interest on this patent.

• Executed on or about 2014-11-05 (filing date) / recorded 2014-11-12 — Reel/frame not exposed in retrieved sources (verify at Assignment Center)
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: GIOBBI, JOHN J.
  • Assignee: PROXENSE, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not exposed in retrieved sources. The address of record on the patent's prosecution file is Patent Law Works / Proxense, Attn: Greg Sueoka, 201 South Main Street, Suite 250, Salt Lake City, UT 84111. The same attorney — Greg T. Sueoka — signed Proxense's 2016 portfolio-liquidation offer letters as outside counsel. Flag: Patent Law Works is the recurring correspondent across the whole Proxense patent family; this is a family-level recurrence, not a within-chain recurrence, because this chain has only one link.
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-company assignment at filing. Contemporaneous with Proxense's own application filing on 2014-11-05. No consideration/fire-sale indicia.

Non-assignment events that must not be mistaken for transfers:

• Subsequent applications claim priority to this patent — 15/077,745 (→ US 10,313,336), 16/392,211 (→ US 11,546,325), 18/148,218 (→ US 2023/0134823). These are domestic-priority/continuation events, not assignments, but they confirm the patent stayed inside the Proxense estate.
• 2016-07-25 portfolio liquidation solicitation. Proxense's counsel (Greg T. Sueoka) wrote to Apple offering to sell "their entire patent portfolio … in a single transaction to a single purchaser," stating "Proxense has never engaged in any patent enforcement litigation," "there are no current licenses granted under the Proxense patents," and "the ultimate purchaser will be able use the Proxense patents offensively against others." No sale closed — Proxense remains the assignee. This is a documented monetization posture, not a recorded assignment.
• Reported Jan 2022 Samsung settlement detail. One trade report (quoting Bloomberg Law) states that in the Samsung settlement Proxense's CEO "was awarded three patents that had been in dispute." This is unverified and ambiguous (could describe patents surviving challenge rather than a title transfer, or a transfer to Giobbi personally). If it reflects a title transfer off Proxense's books, it is not visible in the legal-events record for '956. Flag for direct verification.

Bottom line: no post-issuance assignment of US 9,450,956 appears in any source reviewed. Title has remained with Proxense, LLC since 2014.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9450956
    2010 : Priority application filed
    2014 : US 9450956 filed by Proxense
         : Giobbi assigns rights to Proxense
    2016 : Patent issues 20 Sep
         : Portfolio offered for sale to Apple
    2021 : First enforcement suit vs Samsung
    2023 : Suits vs Google and Microsoft
    2024 : Suits vs Apple and LG
    2025 : Suit vs Hyundai Kia Genesis
         : Unified PATROLL contest on 956

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
Title never left Proxense, LLC. There is no recorded assignment to any entity bearing an "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" suffix, no registered-agent service address, and no single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC in the chain. The only recorded link is the 2014-11-12 inventor-to-company assignment. (Caveat: Proxense itself looks operationally thin — tiny headcount, no product in commerce, no announced customers — but that is a characterization of the original assignee, not a shell-transfer event.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (strong).
The current assignee is a publicly identified NPE and high-frequency plaintiff:

• Unified Patents, PATROLL contest "Proxense: US-9450956-B1," run 2025-07-11 → 2025-08-12; award announced 2025-09-22: "$2,000 awarded for Proxense authentication patent prior art … owned and asserted by Proxense LLC, an NPE … It had been asserted against Hyundai."
• ip fray describes Proxense as "a non-practising entity (NPE) and former operating company" (2026).
• RPX Insight litigation database carries Proxense's complaints (e.g., the Intel action).
• Enforcement docket: Samsung (6:21-cv-00210, 2021) → settled Jan 2022; Google (6:23-cv-00320) and Microsoft (6:23-cv-00319) in 2023; Apple (6:24-cv-00143) and LG in 2024; Intel (2026 settlement) and Hyundai/Kia/Genesis (6:25-cv-00016, filed 2025-01-14) — the case that triggered the PATROLL contest on this patent.
• Proxense is not on the legacy name list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, Round Rock, etc.), so this is classification-by-conduct rather than by corporate lineage.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not applicable within this chain).
Only one assignment link exists, so recurrence within this chain cannot be established. Across the Proxense portfolio, however, Patent Law Works (Greg T. Sueoka, Salt Lake City, UT) is the recurring address of record for prosecution and for the 2016 portfolio-sale correspondence. Litigation counsel is a different, also-recurring set: David L. Hecht, Hecht Partners LLP (lead) and Erick Robinson, Porter Hedges LLP. Because these names are not shown as correspondents on multiple assignment reel/frames for this patent, I am not scoring this as a finding — verify the correspondent field on the sole reel before relying on it.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
Zero post-issuance transfers; no chain of LLCs, no shared correspondent addresses across successive links (there are no successive links).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The sole assignment is dated 2014, roughly seven years before the first suit (2021). It is a filing-time inventor assignment, not a venue- or standing-engineering transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 filing by Proxense was found, and the company remains active and asserting. (Contrast the Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid pattern.)

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
There is no operating-company-to-NPE transfer on this patent. If anything the posture is the reverse: a former operating company self-asserting against its former competitive space. The 2016 letter's offer to sell the portfolio "offensively" is evidence of an assertion-oriented monetization strategy, but no privateering transaction occurred.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN. Unified is adverse here (PATROLL contest on '956 plus IPRs against sibling Proxense patents: IPR2024-00407 on 9,679,289, IPR2024-00573 on 8,646,042, IPR2024-00776 on 9,298,905 — the last ending in adverse judgment 2024-11-12), and RPX appears only as a litigation-data compiler. The patent is decidedly not neutralized.

Additional factual signal (outside the eight categories): the 2016-07-25 Apple letter marketing the entire portfolio to "a single purchaser" while confirming no licenses and no prior enforcement is direct documentary evidence of a portfolio-monetization posture — an unclosed fire-sale offer, not a fire-sale transfer.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The current assignee is Proxense, LLC, unchanged since the single recorded 2014-11-12 inventor assignment — and Unified Patents, RPX and ip fray all classify Proxense as an NPE/high-frequency plaintiff, with Unified running a dedicated 2025 PATROLL prior-art contest on this very patent and multiple IPRs filed against its sibling patents (signal #2, strong). That is buttressed by two weaker, corroborating facts: no product embodying the claims is identifiable in commerce despite the company's historical product-development claims, and Proxense's own 2016 letter marketed its entire portfolio for offensive use by a purchaser while conceding no licenses and no enforcement activity. Notably, the textbook shell-LLC mechanics — cascading transfers, a downstream "IP Holdings" assignee, pre-suit reassignment — are all absent; the NPE status attaches to the original assignee itself rather than to a downstream acquirer, which is why the reel/frame and correspondent fields should be pulled directly from Assignment Center before this is used in any filing.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "9450956") · mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html · legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9450956B1](/patent/US9450956B1)/en (Assignments / Legal Events tabs)

Caveat on completeness: the reel/frame number, execution date, and correspondent of record for the 2014-11-12 assignment were not exposed by the sources I was able to retrieve. I have not substituted an inferred number or name. A direct Assignment Center lookup is required to complete those three fields, and to confirm the unverified 2022 Samsung-settlement report about three patents being "awarded" to John Giobbi.

I'll research this patent number specifically. Let me run several searches.

Let me get the specific front-page citations for this patent.

Let me search directly for the patent's cited references and the PTAB/PATROLL proceedings.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,450,956 B1

1. Verification of the target patent (searched by exact number)

I searched specifically for 9,450,956 (not similar numbers). Confirmed bibliographic record:

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9450956B1](/patent/US9450956B1)/en ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-9450956-B1 ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/9450956

Important scope change vs. the parent. The '956 claims are not the generic "PDK + reader + biometric auto-login" claims of the parent. Claim 1 is drawn to multi-user, priority-based access to a shared computing device, and claim 7 is its method counterpart. That matters because it changes which art is "most relevant."

2. Honest caveat on the "patent citations" front-page list

I must be explicit: My searches did not return the complete OCR'd front-page "(56) References Cited" block for the '956 patent itself. Snippets returned citation tables for sibling Proxense patents (e.g., US 11,086,979; US 11,157,909; US 8,886,954; US 11,113,482), which share the specification and largely the same citation list — but I cannot confirm every entry appears on the '956 front page. I am therefore not going to manufacture a numbered citation list I did not retrieve. Everything below is either (a) textually cited inside the '956 specification, or (b) sourced from the actual '956 post‑grant challenge record and clearly labeled as such.

3. References cited within the '956 specification ("cited in the description")

These are Giobbi/Proxense self-citations, incorporated by reference. They are relevant background but are § 102 ante‑dating them in view of their own inventors is difficult and they were not treated as anticipatory art:

Because these are the patentee's own filings and are incorporated by reference, they read as background rather than as independent § 102 art.

4. Most relevant actual prior art (post‑grant challenge record)

The '956 patent was the subject of a Unified Patents PATROLL open prior-art contest (prize $2,000; ended Aug. 2025), which is the single most concentrated, claim-mapped prior-art effort against this exact number. Source: https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/qj5oJJJE7kyz3aqXA and the winning submission https://unifiedpatents.squarespace.com/s/PATROLL_Proxense_US9450956.pdf

The winning submission charted claim 1 against:

Reference A — KR 10‑0647374 B1 ([LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.))

• Title: Apparatus/method for automatically controlling an operating environment of an electronic device for multiple users
• Description: An RFID tag stores a unique, user-recognizable ID plus a user priority; the tag is carried by the user (phone/PDA/body-worn). An RFID reader (120/230) reads the tag when in proximity. A controller (130/240) compares the new user's priority to the current user's priority and switches the electronic device's operating environment to the higher-priority user.
• § 102 mapping to claim 1: This is a near element-for-element read:
  • "first/second PDK … comprising information regarding … user priority" → priority-bearing RFID tag
  • "reader configured to detect … within a proximity zone" → RFID reader 120/230
  • "shared computing device … provide access to the first user" → controlled electronic device (FV 200)
  • "responsive to detecting the second PDK that was not detected when the first user was provided access … based on determining the second user priority relative to the first user priority" → the express "determine whether the priority of the new user is higher than the priority of the current user … switching to a new operating environment" logic described in the KR abstract and ¶¶[0019], [0030], [0046]–[0047].
• Caveat: I did not verify the KR publication/grant date in this session; on its face the B1 number is consistent with a pre‑2010 date, which would make it § 102(b) art. This date should be confirmed before relying on it.

Reference B — Minolta Co. "Profile system"

• Cited in the winning chart at claim 4 (the "group / application-specific preferences" limitation). It disposes of the group-based application-launching limitation. I could not retrieve its full date or document number in this session.

Reference C — a US patent beginning "US‑921…" cited as heading "C" in the winning chart

• The excerpt was truncated ("### C. US-921…"). I cannot give you the full number without guessing, and I will not fabricate it. This reference should be pulled from the winning-submission PDF directly.

Non-patent literature (from the related Proxense family citation list)

• BlueProximity, "BlueProximity — Leave it, it's locked; come back, it's back too…", Aug. 26, 2007 (http://blueproximity.sourceforge.net).
• Bohrsatom et al., "Automatically unlock PC when entering proximity," Dec. 7, 2005 (salling.com forum).
• These two are directly on point for claims 6 and 12 (locking the display / saving-and-hiding a session when the PDK leaves the proximity zone), and are the strongest NPL candidates for those dependent claims. Source: https://patents.justia.com/patent/[12056558](/patent/12056558)

5. § 102 anticipation assessment summary

6. Litigation / challenge context (affects which art matters)

• Family litigation flag: Darts‑IP family 52101970; Texas W.D. case 6:25‑cv‑00016 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A25-cv-00016).
• Asserted against Hyundai (per the PATROLL notice); Proxense has also sued Microsoft, Google and Samsung.
• Related PTAB activity (against other Proxense patents, not '956): IPR2024‑00405 (Microsoft) on US 10,073,960 used Giobbi‑157 (US 2007/0245157 A1), Giobbi‑139 (US 2004/0255139 A1), Dua (US 9,042,819) and Broadcom (EP 1 536 306 A1); IPR2024‑00233 (Google) on US 8,886,954. These are useful § 103 combination templates if you want to attack '956 via obviousness rather than pure anticipation.

7. What I could not confirm (stated rather than fabricated)

1. The complete front-page "(56) References Cited" list of US 9,450,956 B1 (U.S. patents, foreign patents, NPL). My searches returned sibling-patent citation tables instead.
2. The full patent number of "US‑921…" in the PATROLL winning chart (truncated in the result).
3. The publication/grant date of KR 10‑0647374 B1 — needed before asserting it as § 102(b) art.
4. Whether the Minolta "Profile system" is a patent or non-patent document, and its date.

Recommended next step to close these gaps: pull the '956 issued-PDF front page directly (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com — the PDF is linked from https://patents.google.com/patent/US9450956B1/en) and the full PATROLL winning-submission PDF at the Unified Patents URL above; those two documents contain the authoritative citation and claim-chart data I was unable to fully retrieve here.

I'll gather the prior-art references associated with this patent before constructing the § 103 analysis.

Let me pull the detailed claim chart and reference list from the PATROLL submission and the Google Patents "similar documents" for this patent.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,450,956 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Source note and scope caveat (read first)

The authoritative full text supplied for this session is truncated — it ends inside the description of the auto-login server (§ FIG. 17) and does not contain a discrete "Prior Art" / "Citations" section, the claim set, or the Google Patents "Similar Documents" list. So when you say "the results from the Prior Art section of this page," I want to be explicit about what I could and could not retrieve:

• Retrieved and relied upon: the Unified Patents PATROLL winning submission for US‑9450956‑B1 (the contest page at patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/qj5oJJJE7kyz3aqXA, and the winning chart PDF at unifiedpatents.squarespace.com/s/PATROLL_Proxense_US9450956.pdf). That submission charts claim 1 using two references: (A) a Minolta "profile system" reference and (B) KR‑100647374‑B1 (LG Electronics). The PATROLL rules state that "prior art that has been previously cited during prosecution will not be considered," which tells me both references are not of record in the '956 file.
• Referenced but not read in full: the Google Patents "Similar Documents" set, which the contest page itself links (filtered to pre‑2010‑07‑15). I did not obtain that list verbatim here.
• Third-party candidates from a same-family PCT search report: the ISR for Proxense's own WO2007133540A3 ("Personal Digital Key Differentiation of Secure Transactions") cites US 2003/0127511 A1 (Kelly et al.) and US 2006/0022046 A1 (Iwamura) as "Y" (obviousness) art against claims 1‑31, plus US 5,416,780 (Patel) and US 2003/0139190 A1 (Steelberg et al.). (Kelly and Iwamura are third-party and usable; the Proxense-family documents themselves are not usable against '956 because of common ownership — see caveat in §7.)

I have not verified the exact granted wording of claims 2‑20 (the claim text was not in the supplied page), and I did not locate each reference's exact publication date. Those are flagged where relevant. Per my operating rules I have not auto-corrected any identifier; KR-100647374-B1 and the Minolta reference are reproduced as found, and I have not invented a Minolta patent number.

1. Legal standard applied

Under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), obviousness turns on (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) objective evidence of non-obviousness. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a claim is obvious where the combination of known elements yields only predictable results, where an element is a mere substitution of a known technique, or where the solution was "obvious to try" among a finite set of identified, predictable options. Rationales for combining are catalogued at MPEP § 2143. The test is whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the effective filing date — here nominally 2010‑07‑15 (Google Patents) / 2010‑07‑14 (Unified Patents). One earlier section flagged this one-day discrepancy; it does not change any conclusion because both references substantially predate either date.

Level of ordinary skill (assumed): a bachelor's degree in EE/CS (or equivalent) with ~2–4 years' experience in RF/wireless identification, authentication, or access-control systems, or equivalent work experience. This is a low-to-moderate skill level; nothing in the claim requires a technical advance in RFID physics.

2. The claims at issue (as reconstructed)

Independent claim 1 (system) and independent claim 7 (method) are the operative targets; claims 2‑6 depend from 1 and claims 8‑20 depend from 7. As reconstructed from the PATROLL chart and confirmed by the earlier section, the independent claims require:

1. A first PDK associated with a first user, in a proximity zone of a reader, the first user having a first user priority, and the first PDK comprising information regarding the first user priority;
2. A second PDK associated with a second user (having a second user priority, carried on the PDK) that was non-present when the first PDK was detected (claim 7) / that triggers a second detection (claim 1);
3. A shared computing device (associated with the reader);
4. Access to the shared computing device already in use by the first user / the first user's session, granted to the second user based on comparing the second user's priority against the first user's priority using the priority information carried in the PDKs.

That is the whole inventive core: proximity-detected, priority-ranked hand-off/takeover of a shared computing session.

3. Primary combination: KR‑100647374‑B1 (LG Electronics) in view of the Minolta "profile" reference

3.1 KR‑100647374‑B1 — what it discloses

Title (per the chart's quotes): "apparatus and method for automatically controlling an operating environment of an electronic device for a multi‑user" using RFID. Its quoted disclosures map almost element-for-element onto claim 1:

• RFID tag carried by a user – "Each registered user stores unique information or ID that can be recognized uniquely in a tag, and attaches the tag to a device that he/she always carries, such as a mobile phone or a PDA, to carry it, or to a part of the body." (Para [0047].)
• Reader / proximity zone – "the RFID readers 120 and 220 … read user‑specific information present in a user's tag through short‑range or long‑range wireless recognition when a new user exists within a range that can be recognized by itself … the RFID readers 120 and 220 are set to recognize the user only within a predetermined range." (Paras [0066]–[0069].) This is a proximity zone with an adjustable bound.
• Priorities among multiple users stored and used to rank them – "the user registers unique information or IDs … and simultaneously assigns priorities among all users according to a user priority setting algorithm." (Para [0019].)
• Comparison of the incoming user's priority against the current user's priority – "the operating environment controllers 130 and 230 perform a step of comparing the priorities of the existing user and the new user according to the detected identification information (S330) … it is determined whether the newly recognized user has a higher priority than the current user priority (S342)." (Paras [0066]–[0071].)
• Switch/takeover of the shared device already in use by the first user – "the operation environment controllers 130 and 230 change the operation environment of the electronic device 160 … to switch to the operating environment set for the [new user's] operation (S350)." (Paras [0070]–[0071].) The electronic device is, by definition, in its "current user" environment when the new user is detected, i.e., it is already in use by the first user.

The only limitation KR does not squarely show is that the priority information travels on the tag itself (rather than merely being looked up centrally against a "user list"). That is the gap the Minolta reference fills.

3.2 The Minolta "profile" reference — what it discloses

Per the same chart:

• "The profile information includes priority information, whereby when plural occupants are present, setting of each equipment 40 is performed with priority to the profile information having higher priority." (Minolta, Abstract.)
• "…it is determined whether the control of each facility 40 by the common setting information 55 is performed with priority on the profile information 50 of the driver or the profile information 50 of the driver is prioritized (step S303)." (Minolta, Para [0062]; charted at claim 4.)

The Minolta disclosure is directed to multi-occupant (driver/passenger) prioritization of shared equipment settings, where the priority is a field of the user/occupant profile and the system resolves conflicts among concurrently present users by comparing their stored priorities. That supplies the claimed feature that the priority accompanies the user's identity data and drives the conflict-resolution/takeover logic.

3.3 Element-by-element mapping of claim 1

3.4 Element-by-element mapping of claim 7 (method)

Claim 7 is the method mirror of claim 1 ("detecting … detecting a second PDK … that was non‑present during the detecting of the first PDK … providing the second user access … based on the priority comparison"). KR's flowchart steps S310–S350 are literally a method: initial operation → detect new user in range (S320) → read identification from the RFID signal (S330) → determine whether the new user is in the user list (S341) → compare new vs. current priority (S342) → switch operating environment if the new priority is higher (S350). Minolta supplies the profile‑borne priority. So the same combination disposes of claim 7 for the same reasons.

4. Why a PHOSITA would have combined KR‑100647374‑B1 and Minolta (motivation to combine)

Applying the MPEP § 2143 rationales and KSR:

1. Same field, same problem, same solution shape. Both references address the identical problem: an electronic device/equipment shared by more than one user, where the system must decide whose identity and preferences govern when several users are simultaneously present. KR applies it to an RFID‑controlled electronic device; Minolta applies it to shared vehicle equipment. These are analogous arts to the '956 problem of a shared computing device in a healthcare/office setting (the '956 specification expressly frames the problem as "constant and time‑consuming login and logout of healthcare providers"). Reasonable expectation of success is high because each reference already solves the multi‑user conflict problem.

2. Combination of known elements yielding predictable results (KSR; MPEP 2143.01(III)). KR already performs exactly the claimed comparison-then-switch on a proximity-detected tag. Adding Minolta's known refinement — putting the priority field on the user's profile/credential instead of only in a central table — requires no change in the principle of operation. It is a substitution of one known data‑storage location (tag/profile) for another (central list) to achieve the same result, a classic predictable‑variation rationale (MPEP 2143.01(V)).

3. Motivation supplied by the references themselves. KR's Abstract and claim 4 recite the priority‑comparison method as its stated object; Minolta's Abstract states that priority is part of the profile information. A PHOSITA reading Minolta is directly taught that the priority is a per‑user profile field — the very feature KR lacks.

4. Design incentives / market forces. Distributing the priority to the credential reduces the need to keep the reader in synchronous, up‑to‑date contact with a central user table before it can decide a takeover — an evident efficiency and offline‑operation incentive (the '956 specification itself touts standalone‑reader operation and local buffering in connection with the same proximity architecture).

5. Obvious to try / finite predictable options. Where a priority value must be available to a proximity reader, storing it (a) centrally and (b) on the credential are the only two practical options known in the art; KSR teaches that choosing among a small, identified set of predictable solutions is not inventive.

No reference teaches away from the combination — KR does not disparage keeping priority with the user, and Minolta affirmatively prefers it.

5. Dependent claims (2‑6, 8‑20) — provisional treatment

I could not read the dependent‑claim text from the supplied document (it was truncated before the claims). Based on the claim 1/7 core and the specification, the dependents most likely add one or more of: an integrated reader in the shared computing device (FIG. 6 reader 620); wireless‑link/protocol features (RDC, secure channel, BLE/NFC/short‑range); biometric or other profile authentication before the hand‑off (FIGS. 9–10D); logging out/locking the first user when the PDK leaves the zone (FIG. 21); and time‑interval "trust" windows (FIG. 9). For these, the strongest secondary references are:

• KR‑100647374‑B1 itself for the "logging out / environment reverts" and multi‑user‑list aspects;
• US 2003/0127511 A1 (Kelly et al.) and US 2006/0022046 A1 (Iwamura) as third‑party Y‑references identified in the Proxense‑family ISR for proximity credentials and access control — usable because they are third‑party and predate 2010, though I have not verified their full text in this session;
• the general RFID/NFC and biometric‑reader art cited in the '956 specification's own background for the wireless and biometric elements.

I'd flag that any conclusion on claims 2‑6 and 8‑20 is provisional until the granted dependent‑claim language is verified against the printed patent or Patent Center.

6. Anticipated patent‑owner (Proxense) counterarguments and responses

• "KR stores priority centrally, not on the PDK." True of KR alone; that is precisely why the combination with Minolta is offered. The combination supplies the missing limitation.
• "PDK ≠ simple RFID tag; the specification requires tamper‑proof storage and a secure RDC channel." This is the most credible defense. If the court construes "PDK" narrowly (tamper‑proof, profile‑bearing secure credential), a third reference teaching a secure, tamper‑resistant portable credential may be needed to close the gap. Candidate art would be the RFID/secure‑token and smart‑card literature already cited in the '956 background; Proxense's own family patents cannot supply it (see §7). Note, however, that the independent claims as reconstructed recite only "priority information" on the PDK and do not recite tamper‑proof storage or biometric authentication, which weakens this rebuttal for claims 1 and 7.
• "Different fields — vehicle equipment vs. computing session." Analogy is measured against the problem to be solved, not the environment. The problem — resolving which of several proximate, identified users' preferences control a shared device — is the same; KSR cautions against rigid field‑of‑use limitations.
• Secondary considerations. I found no evidence of record tying objective indicia (unexpected results, long‑felt need, industry praise, failure of others) to the priority‑hand‑off limitation. Proxense's litigation activity and the patent's commercial licensing are not, standing alone, probative of non‑obviousness without a nexus to the claimed feature. The PATROLL award (announced September 22, 2025) and the currently dismissed Hyundai suit (No. 6:25‑cv‑00016, W.D. Tex., voluntarily dismissed 2025‑04‑15) do not bear on validity either way.
• "Previously cited art/patent‑family estoppel." Note that the references now being charted are not of record in the '956 prosecution (PATROLL's own rule confirms this), so there is no § 325(d)-style "already considered" hurdle for the examiner or the Board — a point favoring the obviousness case.

7. Important caveats — do not overstate this analysis

1. Claim‑text gap. The granted language of claims 2‑20 was not available here; the mappings above for the dependents are provisional.
2. Common‑ownership bar for the Proxense family. The specification's incorporated references (U.S. App. Ser. Nos. 11/292,330; 11/620,581; 11/620,577; 11/744,832; 11/314,199; 11/939,451) and the WO2007133540A3 family are the same inventor/assignee and predate the priority date; they are therefore generally not available as prior art against '956 under the common‑ownership exception (pre‑AIA § 103(c) / AIA § 102(b)(2)(C)). They may be used only as background evidence of the state of the art, not as the anticipatory or obviousness references.
3. Reference details unverified. I did not confirm the exact publication/registration dates of KR‑100647374‑B1 or the Minolta reference, nor read their full texts; I relied on the quoted passages in the PATROLL chart. The Korean number's format (10‑0647374) suggests a mid‑2000s registration, consistent with pre‑2010 availability, but confirm before relying on it.
4. The Minolta reference has no confirmed patent number here. I deliberately did not fabricate one; it is identified only as "Minolta Co" per the chart.
5. The task's reference to "the Prior Art section of this page" could not be fully honored: the supplied page text contains no such section. The two references above are the ones that the record links to this patent. If your "Prior Art section" contains additional references, provide that list and I will re‑run the combination analysis against them.

Bottom line: The strongest § 103 case against independent claims 1 and 7 is KR‑100647374‑B1 in view of the Minolta profile reference — KR teaches every element except priority data carried on the user's tag, and Minolta expressly teaches priority as a field of the carried user profile together with multi‑user priority‑based takeover of shared equipment. The combination is supported by at least four independent MPEP § 2143 rationales and by KSR, with no teaching away. Claims 2‑6 and 8‑20 require the granted claim text to finalize, but the same references (plus Kelly/Iwamura as secondary art) are the natural candidates.