US 9576452

I'll research this specific patent number across USPTO and CAFC docket sources.

Let me pull the specific claims and check the CAFC docket activity for this patent.

Let me verify the IPR and get the actual claim text for this patent.

US 9,576,452 B2 — Analyst Summary

Scope note: All findings below are keyed to the literal identifier 9,576,452 only. Several search hits in this family refer to different patents (e.g., 9,478,110; 9,135,800; 9,659,472; 9,396,631; 9,266,247) and are noted only as context, not as substitutes.

1. Bibliographic data (high confidence)

Uncertainty flagged: The listing simultaneously shows "Expired – Fee Related" and a 2026-12-14 anticipated expiration (20 years from the 12/14/2006 filing). This is internally inconsistent in the ordinary course — a maintenance-fee lapse would give an earlier effective expiration date. I could not confirm from the retrieved sources which maintenance fee window was missed (a 7.5-year fee would have been due on/around Aug. 21, 2024, with grace to on/about Feb. 21, 2025). Treat the expiration date as needing verification against USPTO PatentCenter fee records.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"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."

3. Post-grant and court activity directly tied to 9,576,452

• PTAB IPR2018-00481 — Mobile Tech, Inc. et al. v. InVue Security Products Inc. Filed Jan. 12, 2018; institution decision July 17, 2018; Final Written Decision July 16, 2019. Claims challenged in the petition: 1–35. Panel: APJs Stacey G. White (opinion author), Justin T. Arbes, Daniel J. Galligan. Google Patents' family record lists the petitioner data source as "Unified Patents PTAB Data."
  • Uncertainty: the retrieved litigation-summary fields for "Claims Instituted" and "Claims Invalidated" were returned empty, so I cannot state the substantive outcome of the FWD (i.e., which, if any, claims were held unpatentable) with confidence.
• CAFC 19-2408 — InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc. Appeal docketed Sept. 18, 2019, from the IPR2018-00481 Final Written Decision. Counsel of record include Gregory J. Carlin / David S. Moreland (Meunier Carlin & Curfman) for InVue and Alan Norman (Thompson Coburn) for MTI. I found no 2026 CAFC docket activity for this patent; this appeal is from 2019 and no 2026 docket or mandate for 9,576,452 surfaced in my searches.
• N.C. Western District Court case 3:17-cv-00075 — district-court litigation in the same family.
• Distinguish: CAFC Nos. 2018-1236, -1238, -1239, -1304 (Rule 36 summary affirmance, March 8, 2019) arise from IPR2016-00892/00896/00898/00899 and are not appeals of 9,576,452.
• Family continuation activity continued through January 17, 2025 (priority claimed to US 19/028,944, published as US 2025/0166486 A1), so sibling filings remain live even though the '452 listing shows expired.

4. Plain-language technology overview (specification)

The '452 specification is the merchandise-theft-prevention family specification, describing:

• A programming station (housing, logic control circuit with microprocessor, random-number generator, SDC memory, IR transceiver, LED status display, key-actuated lock) that generates a Security Disarm Code (SDC) unique to that station/store and transfers it to a programmable key.
• The programmable key stores the SDC in memory, has an internal battery, an internal timer (e.g., 96 hours) that invalidates the SDC, and an activation counter that permanently disables the key after a maximum number of activations to preserve battery life.
• The security device (alarm module 7, or later-embodied product-display devices 100/105/109/115, or a passive cabinet lock 207) receives the SDC from the key on first activation/arming, stores it permanently, and thereafter arms/disarms only on an SDC match. A mismatch triggers the audible alarm.
• Later CIP-embodied subject matter: power transfer from the key to a passive security device via electrical contacts or inductive (ferrite-core coil) transfer to drive an electric motor/stepper/solenoid lock mechanism; a charging station that recharges the key battery and can "time-out"/deactivate the key until it is refreshed at the programming station; EOL/battery-lifetime timers in the security device.

5. Independent-claim overview — significant uncertainty

Important limitation on this answer: the authoritative full text I retrieved for US 9,576,452 was truncated before the claims section (it ends inside the Background/Description), and my targeted searches for the verbatim "What is claimed is" text did not return the '452 claim set. The only independent-claim text I could verify from primary sources belongs to sibling patents in the chain — US 9,135,800 (claims 25, 31, 35) and an Appeal 2020-003339 application — not to 9,576,452. I therefore cannot give you verbatim independent claims for the '452 patent with confidence.

What can be said with reasonable confidence based on the abstract, the specification, and the fact that IPR2018-00481 challenged claims 1–35:

1. System claim (programming station + programmable key + security device). Recites a programming station that generates and stores a security code, a programmable key that receives and stores the code in memory, and a security device attached to merchandise that receives the code from the key and is armed/disarmed (or unlocked) only when the codes match.
2. Plural-device / plural-key system claim. Likely a variant in which one common security code is used across multiple security devices and multiple programmable keys, each key being inactivated after a predetermined period and reactivated by the programming station — the limitation that was the focus of the sibling-patent IPR dispute over Denison.
3. Method claim. Storing a station-generated, station-unique security code; providing it to a programmable key; storing it at a merchandise-attached security device having an alarm; and arming/disarming the security device upon a match.
4. Power-transfer / inductive-transfer claims. Given the specification's FIG. 18–28A subject matter and the abstract's recitation of "electrical contacts or inductive transfer," at least some independent claims of the '452 patent likely recite the key transferring power from an internal battery to a passive lock mechanism, either via contacts or inductively.

Please verify before relying on this: the actual independent claims should be pulled from patents.google.com/patent/US9576452B2/en (Claims tab) or USPTO PatentCenter for application 15/241,708, and cross-checked against the IPR2018-00481 Final Written Decision on PTAB (which reproduces the claims as challenged).

6. Bottom line

US 9,576,452 is an InVue continuation in the "programmable security system" family (priority Dec. 23, 2005; filed Aug. 19, 2016; granted Feb. 21, 2017), directed to a store-unique SDC generated by a programming station, loaded into a timer/counter-limited programmable key, transferred to and stored in a merchandise security device, and used to arm/disarm or power a lock. It was the subject of IPR2018-00481 (FWD July 16, 2019, claims 1–35 challenged) and the resulting CAFC appeal 19-2408. Its listing shows Expired – Fee Related with an anticipated expiration of 2026-12-14. No 2026 CAFC docket activity for this patent was found, and I was unable to obtain the verbatim claim set or confirm the substantive IPR/CAFC outcome from the sources reachable in this session — both should be confirmed against USPTO PatentCenter and PACER/PTAB before being relied upon.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9576452, starting with the leads already present in the patent record.

I have good leads. Let me dig into the specific cases referenced in the patent record and search for the related district court and Federal Circuit matters.

Let me confirm the specific cases tied to the '452 patent and resolve a discrepancy I'm seeing on case numbers.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,576,452 ("Programmable security system and method for protecting merchandise," InVue Security Products Inc.)

I searched the patent's own Google Patents litigation record, the Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portal, PTAB filings, CAFC dockets, and district‑court dockets. Here is what is confirmable, with the caveat that the record contains at least one data‑scrape mismatch (flagged below).

1. PTAB — Inter Partes Review (the only adversarial proceeding that directly names the '452 patent)

Grounds/evidence cited in the record include Belden (US 2007/0159328), Denison (US 2004/0201449), Rothbaum (US 5,543,782), Sedon, and Ott — the same prior‑art family MTI used against the sibling InVue patents.

⚠️ Important correction to the Google Patents "Petitioner" field: That page lists "Petitioner: 'Unified Patents PTAB Data' by Unified Patents." That is a data‑license attribution, not the real party in interest. The actual petitioner, per the PTAB documents and Patexia, is Mobile Tech, Inc. et al. / MTI.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9576452](/patent/US9576452)/en ; https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Mobile-Tech-Inc-v-InVue-Security-Products-Inc-id-[110848](/patent/110848) ; https://www.law360.com/ptab_cases/59804f4e4de975046e00b0d9

2. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/19-2408 ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[3009647](/patent/3009647)-invue-security-products-v-mobile-tech

3. District court litigation — family‑level only; I cannot confirm the '452 patent was pleaded

The Google Patents record's "Family has litigation" block (which covers the whole InVue family, no. 44787811, not just this patent) reports a U.S. case filed in the Western District of North Carolina, case no. 3:17-cv-00075, linked to the Unified Patents portal. That is a family‑level record.

• Caveat on the case number: A Unified Patents caselist scrape I retrieved shows "3:17-cv-00075 | 2017-01-05 | Closed | California Northern District Court | Fabletics LLC | Landmark Technology LLC." That row is almost certainly a mismatched/unrelated entry (different parties, different court, different patents — an NPE case). I am not reporting it as this case. The only reliable link is the Google Patents family entry pointing to a W.D.N.C. 3:17-cv-00075.
• I could not independently confirm the plaintiff/defendant, the asserted patents, or the outcome for that W.D.N.C. 3:17-cv-00075 docket, and no complaint I retrieved pleads U.S. 9,576,452 specifically.

Related InVue v. Mobile Tech district‑court matters I found, for context (these asserted other InVue patents, not the '452):

• 3:15-cv-00610 (W.D.N.C., filed Dec. 14, 2015) — asserted U.S. 9,269,247; 9,135,800; 8,884,762 (and later 9,396,631). The '452 issued Feb. 21, 2017, after this case was filed.
• 3:18-cv-00052 (W.D.N.C.) — '140 and '281 patents; stayed pending ex parte reexamination.
• 3:19-cv-00407 (D. Or.) — '787 and '954 patents.
• 8:18-cv-02548 (M.D. Fla.) — InVue v. Vanguard Products Group (patents not specified in what I retrieved).

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9576452/en ; https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-north_carolina/court-ncwdce/noscat-10/nos-830?page=9 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist?patents=9135800 ; https://cases.justia.com/.../3:2019cv00407/... ; https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db1-invue-security-products-inc-v-vanguard-products-group-inc-[877807](/patent/877807)

4. Related (sibling‑patent) appeals — NOT involving the '452 patent

To avoid confusion, these Federal Circuit appeals involve different InVue patents from the same family: 2018-1597 (appeal of IPR2016-01241, U.S. 7,737,846 — Rule 36 summary affirmance, March 8, 2019), 2018-1889, 2018-1304, and 2018-1236. None is an appeal of the '452 patent.

Source: http://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1597.Rule_36_Judgment.3-8-2019.1.pdf

Bottom line

• One adversarial proceeding directly involves U.S. 9,576,452: PTAB IPR2018-00481 (Mobile Tech, Inc. et al. v. InVue Security Products Inc.), filed Jan. 12, 2018, instituted Jul. 17, 2018, Final Written Decision Jul. 16, 2019 on claims 1–35.
• Its appeal is CAFC 19-2408 (InVue v. Mobile Tech), filed Sept. 18, 2019; I could not confirm the disposition.
• A family‑level W.D.N.C. case, 3:17-cv-00075, is reported on the patent record, but I cannot confirm that the '452 patent itself was asserted there, nor the parties or outcome.
• I found no other litigation specifically identifying U.S. 9,576,452. If you need a PACER‑verified docket and disposition for 19-2408 and 3:17-cv-00075, those two items should be pulled directly from PACER/PTAB — I am flagging them as unverified rather than guessing.

Would you like me to attempt to pull the PACER docket for W.D.N.C. 3:17-cv-00075 and the CAFC 19-2408 disposition next?

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 9,576,452 ("Programmable security system and method for protecting merchandise")

Data-integrity flag up front. The "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is wrong for 9,576,452. The authoritative patent text supplied in this prompt itself lists, under the family-litigation entry: "PTAB case IPR2018-00481 filed (Final Written Decision)" with a link to https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2018-00481, and the same record lists the CAFC appeal at 19-2408. Public PTAB papers, the Board's own orders, and the patent owner's Notice of Appeal confirm the proceeding. Treat the ODP block as a stale/under-indexed pull, not as evidence of an empty PTAB history.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file against US 9,576,452 — IPR2018-00481 (Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc.), filed 2018-01-12, instituted 2018-07-17, Final Written Decision 2019-07-16 holding all of claims 1–35 unpatentable for obviousness (§ 103(a)), status = Final Written Decision (claims unpatentable), followed by a Federal Circuit appeal by InVue (No. 2019-2408, docketed 2019-09-18). Bottom line for a defendant: the entire claim set of the '452 patent has been held unpatentable in a final Board decision — if an InVue demand letter cites claims 1–35 of the '452 patent, those are the very claims the PTAB cancelled, and any infringement theory resting on them is not merely weak, it is likely sanction-bait. The real risk to a defendant in this family is not '452 at all; it is the large stable of live continuations (see Strategic summary).

IPR2018-00481 — Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2018-01-12 (petition; caption lists only "MOBILE TECH, INC." as Petitioner, with MTI Holdings LLC appearing in third-party databases as a real party in interest)
• Status: Final Written Decision — in plain English: trial completed; all challenged claims held unpatentable; decision (and the resulting cancellation) on line for Federal Circuit review.
• Judge panel: Stacey G. White (opinion author), Justin T. Arbes, Daniel J. Galligan — confirmed both by the Patexia case summary and verbatim in the Board's own orders (e.g., Paper 16, Decision Granting Patent Owner's Motion to Seal, "Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, STACEY G. WHITE, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.").
• Petition grounds: All claims 1–35 challenged. Per Patent Owner's own Notice of Appeal, the Board's operative conclusions were:
  • claims 1–35 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Pat. No. 5,543,782 to Rothbaum et al. ("Rothbaum") in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2004/0201449 to Denison et al. ("Denison");
  • claim 20 unpatentable under § 103(a) over Rothbaum + Denison + U.S. Pat. No. 6,308,928 to Galant;
  • claim 21 unpatentable under § 103(a) over Rothbaum + Denison + JP Published Patent App. 1997-259368 to Uchida.
    No § 112 or § 102 grounds are reflected in the notice of appeal enumeration; the win was an all-§ 103 win.
    (Petition exhibits are publicly indexed — Ex. 1002 Denison, Ex. 1003 Rothbaum — via the Patexia document list.)
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2018-07-17 (per the Patexia trial summary). I did not retrieve the Board's institution reasoning verbatim in this session; the procedural record shows the Petition, a Patent Owner Preliminary Response, and institution ~6 months after filing, which is a standard-track schedule. Flagging that rather than guessing at the panel's § 314(a) language.
• Final Written Decision: 2019-07-16 (Paper 29), 55 pages. Verdict at claim level, quoted from InVue's Notice of Appeal (which recites the Board's determination):

  "the PTAB's determination that Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 9,576,452 (the '452 patent) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over [Rothbaum] and [Denison]; that claim 20 … is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Rothbaum, Denison and [Galant]; and that claim 21 … is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rothbaum, Denison and [Uchida]."

  • Independent claims cancelled: the FWD reached every one of claims 1–35, which necessarily includes each independent claim of the patent. No claim was held patentable. I am not aware of any claim carried through as "not shown unpatentable" — the notice of appeal recites an across-the-board § 103 loss, and there is no public indication of a surviving claim.
  • I did not obtain the FWD's internal claim-by-claim merits discussion verbatim; the disposition language above is quoted from the patent owner's own appellate filing, which is the strongest available public characterization. For the primary source, pull Paper 29 from PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/, search IPR2018-00481) — Google Patents' family record also carries the "Final Written Decision from Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,576,452, dated Jul. 16, 2019, 55 pages (IPR2018-00481)" reference.
• Settlement / termination: No public settlement termination of the IPR. The Board instead decided the case on the merits. The record does show heavy confidentiality activity that counsels caution about what appears redacted:
  • 2018-11-27 (Paper 16) — Board granted Patent Owner's Motion to Seal and entered a protective order, sealing the Remy deposition transcript (Ex. 2022), a chart depicting Petitioner's ownership structure (Ex. 2021), and portions of Patent Owner's Response (Paper 13) relating to "confidential settlement discussions" and Petitioner's internal business/agreements/funding/stock ownership.
  • 2019-04-17 (Paper 22) — Board granted Petitioner's Motion to Seal (Paper 17) covering redacted confidential business information.
    These filings show real-party-in-interest / ownership scrutiny was contested, but the merits were still decided against the patent.
• Appeal: Yes — appealed by the Patent Owner. Notice of Appeal filed 2019-09-17; CAFC No. 19-2408, docketed 2019-09-18 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/19-2408); RPX Insight lists the appeal as ~164 days in appeal with no published outcome summary. I could not confirm the disposition of 2019-2408 in this session, and I will not guess. Two things are true regardless: (i) a PTAB FWD of unpatentability stands and the claims are cancelled unless and until the Federal Circuit reverses; (ii) the companion family appeals InVue pressed before the same court — 18-1236/-1238/-1239/-1304, from IPR2016-00892/-00896/-00898/-00899, and 18-1889/-1898 from IPR2016-00895 — were AFFIRMED by Rule 36 judgment on 2019-03-08 (Dyk, Wallach, Stoll) (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4598031/invue-security-products-inc-v-mobile-tech-inc/), which is the baseline against which InVue's 2019 appeal would have been assessed.
• Defensive value: Decisive. The Board held every claim of the '452 patent unpatentable as obvious, and the patent owner's appeal did not produce a published reversal. If you are accused under the '452 patent, your primary motion should be that the asserted claims have been cancelled by the Board's final decision (with the caveat that you should confirm the CAFC disposition and the issuance of the § 318(b) certificate before relying on it in a pleading). Any demand resting on claims 1–35 is indefensible.

Strategic summary

Claim status. On the public record, claims 1–35 of US 9,576,452 are CANCELED (held unpatentable in IPR2018-00481, FWD 2019-07-16). There are no SUSTAINED claims — no claim survived, and there is no indication of any claim held "not shown unpatentable." There are likewise no untested claims in the sense of un-adjudicated subject matter: the Petition challenged the full claim set, 1 through 35, and the Board resolved all of them. Put differently, the '452 patent as an assertion vehicle is exhausted; there is no narrowed-but-live claim set to design around.

Estoppel landscape. Under § 315(e)(2), Mobile Tech, Inc. and its privies (including MTI Holdings, to the extent it is a real party in interest or privy) are estopped in district court from asserting invalidity on any ground raised in IPR2018-00481 or that reasonably could have been raised — i.e., the entire Rothbaum/Denison/Galant/Uchida § 102/§ 103 universe over the '452 patent. That estoppel, however, is petitioner-specific, so a different defendant is not barred. The good news for that different defendant is that it does not need estoppel: the Rothbaum + Denison combination is public, fully briefed, and judicially credited by a three-APJ panel, and can be repackaged in an invalidity contention, a Rule 12 motion, or a new IPR. The best available § 102/§ 103 art against the '452 claims is therefore Rothbaum-based, and it is now a matter of public record rather than a research project.

Pattern signals. This is a two-way, multi-front, multi-year fight, not a one-off:

• Mobile Tech / MTI is a serial petitioner against the InVue family: IPR2016-00892, -00895, -00896, -00898, -00899 (targeting US 9,269,247, US 9,135,800 and siblings) and IPR2016-01241 (US 7,737,846) — and the three-judge panel in IPR2018-00481 (White/Arbes/Galligan) had the benefit of that earlier body of work. InVue's appeals of the 2016 cohort were affirmed by Rule 36 on 2019-03-08.
• InVue went the other way at the PTAB once: InVue filed PGR2019-00019 against Mobile Tech's US 10,026,281, and institution was denied (see the Board's Decision Denying Institution and MTI's Preliminary Response). This is a different patent and does not affect '452's claim status — I flag it only as evidence that both parties have used the PTAB as a lever in the same commercial dispute.
• Not a defensive aggregator case. The petitioner here is a direct competitor (Mobile Tech / MTI), not Unified Patents. The Unified Patents link on the Google Patents page is only a litigation-data portal link, not evidence of aggregator funding. (Note that PO's sealed exhibits concerned Petitioner's ownership structure and legal funding — PO tried to test the RPI chain, unsuccessfully.)
• District court posture: InVue asserted the family in the W.D.N.C. (e.g., 3:17-cv-00075; earlier 3:15-cv-00610) and later in D. Or. (e.g., 3:19-cv-00407, asserting US 9,830,787 and US 10,055,954). The '452 patent was one of several family members pressed against MTI; the IPR took it off the board.

The real caution for a defendant. InVue has a deep continuation pipeline out of the 2005-12-23 priority chain. The Google Patents record for '452 shows later family members including US 10,013,867, US 10,062,266, US 10,403,122, US 10,600,313, US 11,721,198, US 12,205,457, and sibling patents US 9,269,247, US 9,135,800, US 9,396,631, US 8,884,762, US 7,737,846 all share the same specification lineage. A demand letter that cites the '452 patent is a dead letter; a demand letter citing one of those is a live matter, and IPR2018-00481 gives you a head start only to the extent the asserted claims read on the same Rothbaum/Denison disclosure.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the FWD itself (Paper 29, 2019-07-16, 55 pages) from PTAB E2E — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions / trial number IPR2018-00481 — and quote the disposition paragraph and any claim-by-claim table directly into your invalidity contentions. The Board's orders granting the sealing motions (Paper 16, 2018-11-27; Paper 22, 2019-04-17) are available at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00481/. The Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal (2019-09-17) with the operative § 103 holdings is public at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/776549/rpx-ptab/IPR2018-00481/IPR2018_00481__20190917__Notice_of_Appeal_a73cbdf4c63b06b1118af75423c3c1c0.pdf.
2. Confirm the CAFC outcome and the cancellation certificate before relying on cancellation in a filing. Check the CAFC docket for 19-2408 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/19-2408, and PACER for the merits order) and check whether the USPTO has issued the § 318(b) certificate cancelling claims 1–35. My search did not surface a published disposition for 19-2408; the appeal was live as of the last retrieved docket entry, and RPX records ~164 days in appeal with no outcome summary. Do not represent to a court that a certificate has issued unless you have the document.
3. If you are a defendant and the demand cites '452 claims 1–35, say so in one paragraph: the Board held all 35 claims unpatentable for obviousness over Rothbaum + Denison (with Galant as to claim 20 and Uchida as to claim 21), and Patent Owner appealed and did not obtain a published reversal. Quote the disposition language (above) verbatim.
4. Identify which family member the plaintiff actually means. Cross-check the asserted patent number against the continuation list in the '452 record. If it is one of the 2018–2025 issuances, the '452 IPR is useful prior-art/estoppel context but not dispositive — and a fresh IPR petition would need its own § 314(a)/§ 325(d) discretionary-denial analysis (note the Board's Fintiv practice has shifted materially since 2019).
5. No active trial-stage milestones to track. IPR2018-00481 is concluded; there is no pending PTAB trial on the '452 patent — so there is no institution deadline, no oral hearing date, and no statutory 1-year FWD clock running. The absence of any additional IPR on '452 is unsurprising: once every claim is cancelled, further petitions are pointless.

Confidence statement. High confidence: existence of IPR2018-00481; petitioner identity (Mobile Tech, Inc.); filing 2018-01-12; institution 2018-07-17; FWD 2019-07-16; panel (White, Arbes, Galligan); all claims 1–35 held unpatentable under § 103(a) over Rothbaum + Denison, with Galant added for claim 20 and Uchida for claim 21; appeal No. 19-2408. Lower confidence / explicitly unverified: the Federal Circuit's disposition of 19-2408, the Board's verbatim institution-stage reasoning, and whether a cancellation certificate has issued. Those three items should be confirmed against PTAB E2E, PACER, and the USPTO patent record before being asserted.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9,576,452 across the USPTO Assignment Center, Google Patents legal events, and related sources.

Let me search for the specific assignment records and any corporate transactions involving InVue.

Let me look for the specific USPTO assignment records and Google Patents legal events/assignments.

Assignment-chain analysis — US 9,576,452 B2

Critical data-access caveat up front. I could not retrieve the recorded reel/frame entries for this patent in this session. The USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) is a JavaScript/API-driven search that my available tools cannot query directly, and my targeted searches for "9576452 + reel + frame + correspondent" returned no assignment-record data (Google Patents' legal-events block for this patent surfaces only the priority/filing/publication/grant and family-continuation events, not any reel/frame assignment entries). I therefore will not invent reel/frame numbers or correspondents. Everything below is grounded in the patent's own front-page data, PTAB/CAFC records, and corporate-transaction evidence, and each item is labeled with its confidence level. If you need the reel/frame table, pull it from the Assignment Center search page and cross-check with PEDS for application 15/241,708.

Inventors

Pattern note (partial, flag don't over-read). The '452 is a continuation-in-part-descended filing: it carries the two InVue engineers (Fawcett, Grant) added at the 13/169,968 CIP step, layered on top of the original 2005/2006 inventor trio (Belden, Marsilio, Scott) from the Belden et al. '846 patent. That is a normal inventorship-merge for a CIP, not a red flag by itself.

Inventor-departure check: I found no evidence that named inventors left InVue within 12 months of filing. Fawcett and Grant continued filing InVue applications through at least 2023–2025 (e.g., US 2023/0145820; US 2025/0166486 A1 family), which is the opposite of a pre-fire-sale exodus. No finding here.

Original assignee

InVue Security Products Inc., 9201 Baybrook Lane, Charlotte, NC 28277 (per EP/foreign family records and InVue's own patent filings).

• Products embodying the claims: Yes. InVue is a manufacturer/seller of retail merchandise-security hardware — alarm modules, programmable electronic keys, recoilers/alarming power cords, cabinet locks — the exact subject matter of the '452 specification. This is an operating company, not a licensing vehicle.
• Primary line of business: Physical retail asset-protection and access-control hardware + software.
• Scale/status: Founded 1986 (InVue's own PR; PitchBook lists 2007 as the corporate founding date), ~260–303 employees, 2024 sales ≈ $165M with a strong EBIT margin.
• Corporate events: Acquired Microsigns (Nov 2, 2017); acquired by ASSA ABLOY, announced Jan 23–24, 2025. InVue is now a subsidiary; its Rule 7.1 disclosure in a 2026 suit identifies the corporate parent as Assa Abloy Global Solutions, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 8:26-cv-02536). Current status: operating subsidiary of ASSA ABLOY.

Assignment timeline

No verified reel/frame records were obtainable in this session. Stated plainly: I cannot produce a reel/frame chronological assignment list for US 9,576,452, and I will not fabricate one. On the evidence I could retrieve, the ownership-relevant events are:

• 2005-12-23 — Provisional 60/753,908 filed (priority anchor).
• 2006-12-14 — Non-provisional 11/639,102 filed → issued as US 7,737,846 (Belden et al.), assigned to InVue. (Original inventor→assignee assignment would be recorded here; reel/frame not retrieved.)
• 2016-08-19 — Application 15/241,708 filed (continuation; this patent).
• 2017-02-21 — US 9,576,452 B2 issued; assignee on the face of the patent: InVue Security Products Inc.
• 2025-01-24 — InVue acquired by ASSA ABLOY. Whether this generated a recorded assignment (vs. a stock/merger transfer that leaves "InVue Security Products Inc." as the record owner) is not determinable from retrieved sources. Notably, InVue still pleads as "InVue Security Products Inc." with parent "Assa Abloy Global Solutions, Inc." in 2026 litigation, which is consistent with no name change having been recorded on the patents.

What this most likely means (stated as inference, not fact): the only recorded assignment is the original inventor→InVue assignment; the ASSA ABLOY transaction appears to have been an equity acquisition leaving the patent-holding entity's name intact. This inference must be confirmed against the Assignment Center.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "9576452" or app. 15/241,708); mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9576452
    2005 : Provisional filed by inventor team
    2006 : Nonprovisional filed assigned to InVue
    2016 : Continuation filed
    2017 : Patent issued to InVue
    2017 : InVue acquires Microsigns
    2025 : InVue acquired by ASSA ABLOY

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No "IP/Holdings/Licensing/Ventures" entity appears anywhere in the chain; the patent has sat with the operating company InVue since issuance (per patent face and PTAB records where InVue is patent owner, e.g., IPR2018-00481).

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. InVue does not appear on the NPE rosters referenced (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, etc.); it is the defendant/patent-owner in the PTAB proceedings (IPR2018-00481; IPR2020-00105; IPR2020-00066) and the plaintiff asserting its own products' patents (3:19-cv-00407; 8:26-cv-02536).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not retrievable. I could not obtain any reassignment correspondent-of-record data in this session. No finding either way. If the Assignment Center shows a single attorney of record on multiple family recordings, that would be worth citing, but I have no such record to cite.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. No evidence of chained LLC-to-LLC transfers; the family has remained with InVue.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. InVue asserts this and sibling patents as the long-time owner (e.g., the '452 was challenged in IPR2018-00481 while held by InVue, and the family's enforcement dates from at least 2015–2019, before any ownership change).

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 record for InVue; the 2025 event was a going-concern acquisition by ASSA ABLOY, not a distressed sale.

7. Privateering — not present. The direction is the opposite of privateering: an operating company enforcing its own portfolio against operating competitors (Mobile Tech/MTI, Vanguard Products Group).

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX/AST/LOT/Unified; it terminates at an operating subsidiary of ASSA ABLOY.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the patent issued to and has remained with InVue Security Products Inc., a Charlotte-based manufacturer (~$165M 2024 sales) that ships merchandise-security hardware reading directly on the claims, and that appears in the record as patent owner defending IPR2018-00481 / IPR2018-01138 and as plaintiff asserting this family against competitors (3:19-cv-00407; 8:26-cv-02536). The only ownership event of consequence is the January 2025 ASSA ABLOY acquisition, a going-concern M&A transaction rather than an NPE transfer. Because I could not retrieve the reel/frame table or correspondents, this verdict rests on corporate and litigation records, not on a verified Assignment Center chain — confirm before relying on it.

Recommended verification pull (unresolved items)

1. Assignment Center records for 9,576,452 / app. 15/241,708 — reel/frame, conveyance, and correspondent of record for the original assignment and any 2025 recording.
2. Whether the ASSA ABLOY deal generated a recorded Assignment or Merger/Change of Name entry, or none (equity acquisition).
3. PEDS/ODP assignee history for application 15/241,708 to cross-check the record owner as of 2026.

I'll research the prior art cited against US 9,576,452. Let me pull the patent's citation record and the IPR art.

The Google Patents citation list isn't surfacing in those queries. Let me try the patent's front-page PDF and the examiner's cited references directly.

Strong lead on the IPR art. Now let me get the patent's own front-page "References Cited" list and the IPR2018-00481 decision details.

Prior-art analysis — US 9,576,452 B2

Bottom-line up front: I could not retrieve the '452 patent's own front‑page "References Cited" (Box 56) list from an authoritative source in this session — the full text I was supplied ends inside the Background section, and my searches for the (56)/Patent Citations block returned family-level and unrelated hits rather than the '452 citation list. I am therefore not going to fabricate an itemized (56) list.

What I did retrieve is far more probative than the examiner's citation list: the prior art actually applied against the '452 claims in IPR2018‑00481, confirmed by InVue's own Notice of Appeal, which recites the Board's grounds verbatim. In an IPR the petitioner is not limited to art the examiner cited, so this is the operative prior-art record for this patent.

A. The gap resolved from the earlier sections

The earlier Litigation summary flagged the IPR2018‑00481 outcome as "Not confirmed." That gap is now closed:

"the PTAB's determination that Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that **claims 1‑35 of U.S. Patent No. 9,576,452 … are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,543,782 to Rothbaum et al. ("Rothbaum") and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0201449 to Denison et al. ("Denison"); that claim 20 of the '452 patent is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Rothbaum, Denison and U.S. Patent No. 6,308,928 to Galant; and that claim 21 of the '452 patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rothbaum, Denison and Japanese Published Patent Application No. 1997‑259368 to Uchida."
— InVue Security Products Inc.'s Notice of Appeal, IPR2018‑00481, Sept. 17, 2019
https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[776549](/patent/776549)/rpx-ptab/IPR2018-00481/IPR2018_00481__20190917__Notice_of_Appeal_a73cbdf4c63b06b1118af75423c3c1c0.pdf

No contradiction with the earlier sections — this confirms and fills the "unconfirmed outcome" flag. Note also that this is a §103 obviousness result, not §102 anticipation, which is significant for your specific question (see §C below).

B. Reference-by-reference

Dates below are the ones stated in the IPR papers I retrieved; where I could not verify a date or title from an authoritative source, I say so rather than guess.

Sources for items 5–8: IPR2016‑00895/00896 papers — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1475894](/patent/1475894)/download-documents (exhibit table and grounds); FWD for IPR2016‑00898/00899 — https://mtigs.com/wp-content/uploads/IPR2016-00898899-Final-Written-Decision.pdf ; PO response exhibit list — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1475914](/patent/1475914)/download-documents

C. Direct answer on §102 anticipation — important qualification

No reference on this record was held to anticipate the '452 claims under §102. Every ground the Board credited was §103(a) obviousness, and two of the four references (Galant, Uchida) were used only as secondary teachings against single dependent claims. That combination structure is itself evidence that neither Rothbaum nor Denison alone disclosed every limitation of any independent claim.

If you are asking the §102 question analytically rather than as a record question, the honest mapping is:

• Rothbaum (1996) — the only reference with a date that unambiguously predates the Dec. 23, 2005 priority date by more than a year; the leading candidate if any single reference could anticipate the broadest system/method claim. However, the Board's use of it only in combination indicates it did not.
• Denison (Oct. 14, 2004) — also predates the Dec. 14, 2006 non-provisional filing by more than one year, so §102(b)-eligible; but again applied only in combination.
• Galant — mapped only to claim 20.
• Uchida — mapped only to claim 21.
• Belden — cannot be treated as §102 art against the '452 on the record I have. The Board in the sibling IPR held Belden is not prior art to claims entitled to the Dec. 14, 2006 filing date of the '102 application. Since the '452 is a continuation in that same chain with an earlier (Dec. 23, 2005) priority date, Belden is a fortiori not prior art to it.

Explicit uncertainty: I could not retrieve the verbatim claim text of the '452 (flagged in the earlier summary as well), and the FWD's claim-by-claim reasoning is behind the Notice of Appeal's summary. So the claim numbers in the table above are the claims of record for each ground; the limitation-by-limitation §102 mapping you asked for (which limitation of which claim reads on which reference) requires the FWD itself and the claim set.

D. Where the examiner-cited (56) list can still be obtained

To complete the literal "each patent citation for 9576452" request, pull the front page of the printed patent or the electronic file wrapper — these sources carry the (56) "References Cited" block and the "cited by" list that my searches did not surface:

1. USPTO PatentCenter → Application 15/241,708 → References Cited / Patent Citations tab (authoritative for examiner-cited art).
2. The grant PDF front page for US 9,576,452 B2 (Google Patents "Download PDF" link on https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9576452B2](/patent/US9576452B2)/en) — Box 56 lists U.S. patent documents, foreign patent documents, and other publications as cited on this patent, as distinguished from the family-level "Cited By" and "Similar Documents" lists, which several of my search results conflated.
3. IPR2018‑00481 Final Written Decision (July 16, 2019) — reproduces the challenged claims and the full ground analysis, which is the best single document for the §102/§103 mapping you want.

E. Summary table

I'll pull the IPR2018-00481 record and the prior-art references identified on the patent's page, since the FWD reproduces the challenged claims and the grounds.

I have the IPR grounds. Now let me pull the full claim set and the FWD's reasoning for the dependent claims.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,576,452 B2

35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

Cross-reference note (important): This analysis resolves two open items from the previously generated sections, and corrects one of them:

1. What the "Prior Art" record on this page actually supplies

The Google Patents page's Prior art keywords block is thin — security, programmable, key, security device, control circuit — plus family links to US 7,737,844 (programming station), US 7,737,843 (programmable alarm module) and US 7,737,846 (the '102-application parent, published as US 2007/0159328 A1, "Belden"). The operative § 103 art is therefore the art actually litigated, which is reproduced in the appeal record.

Adjudicated prior art (high confidence):

The FWD's holding (verified verbatim through InVue's Notice of Appeal, Sept. 17, 2019)

"the PTAB's determination that Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–35 of U.S. Patent No. 9,576,452 … are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rothbaum … and Denison; that claim 20 … is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Rothbaum, Denison and … Galant; and that claim 21 … is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rothbaum, Denison and … Uchida."

Source: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[776549](/patent/776549)/rpx-ptab/IPR2018-00481/IPR2018_00481__20190917__Notice_of_Appeal_a73cbdf4c63b06b1118af75423c3c1c0.pdf
FWD dated July 16, 2019, 55 pages (Paper 29); panel Arbes, White (author), Galligan.

Ground structure actually litigated:

Flag — unresolved in this session: (i) the CAFC disposition in 19-2408 (I could not retrieve a Rule 36 judgment, opinion or mandate); (ii) the precise disclosure content of Galant '928 and Uchida JP '368, so the added limitations of claims 20 and 21 are not verified; (iii) the Board's exact POSITA definition in this IPR; (iv) the exact constructions of "port"/"inserted within the port." None of these change the claim 1/27/32 analysis.

2. Claim construction and level of ordinary skill

Claim construction matters. In the sibling IPR on the '247 patent (same family, same specification), InVue successfully pressed a narrowing construction of "programmable key" as "a key capable of being programmed such that it deactivates itself upon the occurrence of a specific event," e.g., a time period or a number of activations (Petition excerpt, IPR on the '247 patent: "'programmable key' means a 'key capable of being programmed such that it deactivates itself upon the occurrence of a specific event, e.g., a certain time period or number of activations"). "Security device" = "a device that protects merchandise from theft"; "programming station" = "a device capable of generating a security code and providing the code to a programmable key"; "permanently storing the security code" = stored for an indefinite time though deletable.

Why this construction helps the obviousness case rather than hurting it: under InVue's own narrow reading, the "programmable key" must self-deactivate on a time/use event — and Denison discloses precisely that: the electronic key is programmed with "key operation limits," and "it can be set to expire automatically after a set time or after a set number of uses" (Denison ¶ 60, Fig. 9). The narrow construction therefore imports Denison's timer/counter teaching into the operative claim term rather than distinguishing it. This is a recurring feature of this family: the narrowing constructions InVue advanced to escape Belden (its own parent) simultaneously surrendered the timer/counter distinction to Denison.

POSITA (flagged as unverified for this IPR): conventionally in this family — a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical or mechanical engineering (or equivalent), with roughly 2–3 years of experience in retail merchandise security systems / electronic locking, including wireless (IR/RF) data communication and battery-powered alarm modules. Petitioner's declarant in the family IPRs was Thaine Allison; the '452 petition (Jan. 12, 2018, 73 pages) relied on comparable testimony.

3. The claims in suit (verified verbatim — this replaces the earlier speculation)

Claim 1 (independent; claims 2–26 depend from it):

"1. A programmable security system for protecting items of merchandise from theft, the programmable security system comprising: a programming station comprising a logic control circuit configured to generate a security code, wherein the programming station comprises a housing enclosing the logic control circuit therein, and wherein the housing comprises a port; a programmable key comprising a memory configured to store the security code, an end of the programmable key configured to be inserted within the port for programming the security code in the memory of the programmable key; and a security device comprising an alarm and a memory for storing the security code, the security device comprising a port, the security device configured to be attached to an item of merchandise, the security device further configured to activate the alarm in response to the integrity of the security device being compromised, wherein the end of the programmable key is configured to be inserted within the port of the security device to communicate with the security device and to control the security device upon a matching of the security code stored by the security device with the security code stored by the programmable key."

Claim 27 (independent; claims 28–31 depend from it): a method comprising "inserting an end of a programmable key within a port defined in a housing enclosing a logic control circuit; actuating a mechanical switch on the housing for programming a security code in the programmable key with the logic control circuit; programming the security code in a security device; attaching the security device to an item of merchandise, the security device comprising a port, the security device comprising an alarm configured to be activated in response to the integrity of the security device being compromised; inserting the end of the programmable key within the port of the security device; and controlling the security device upon a matching of the security code of the programmable key with the security code of the security device."

Claim 32 (independent; claims 33–35 depend from it): a system comprising "a programming station configured to provide a single security code that is unique to the programming station; a programmable key comprising a memory configured to store the single security code; and a security device comprising an alarm and a memory for storing the single security code … wherein the programmable key is configured to control the security device upon a matching of the single security code …."

Source: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US9576452B2](/patent/US9576452B2)

Note the claim-set structure: the '452 set is narrower and simpler than the earlier summary guessed. There is no plural-key/plural-device reactivation claim, no method claim reciting "storing a security code in a programming station," and no power-transfer/inductive independent claim. Three independent claims: 1 (system), 27 (method), 32 (system with station-unique single code).

4. Ground 1 — Claims 1–35 obvious over Rothbaum + Denison

4.1 Rothbaum (U.S. 5,543,782) discloses

Rothbaum's gap: its key is a mechanical key, is not programmable, has no programming station, and carries no stored security code. Rothbaum's "customized" key is customized by physical structure, not by data.

4.2 Denison (US 2004/0201449) supplies

4.3 Element-by-element — claim 1

Every element is accounted for; the only arguable gap (Rothbaum's mechanical key switch) is exactly what Denison contributes.

4.4 Element-by-element — claim 27 (method) and claim 32 (system)

• Claim 27: Rothbaum's key switch 38 is a mechanical switch on the housing that is actuated by a key 40 — satisfying "actuating a mechanical switch on the housing" (a limitation the earlier summary did not anticipate and which is a significant drafting gift to a petitioner). Denison supplies the "port" insertion, the programming step, and the "control upon a matching" step.
• Claim 32: "a single security code that is unique to the programming station" maps directly onto Denison's "key code[s] … used to define the security and access control strategy," including a shared "access code" programmed from the external computing device into multiple keys and locks (¶¶ 42–43, 85–86). Uniqueness-to-the-station is a degree of the same programmed-code concept, and nothing in the '452 claims adds structure beyond it.

4.5 Why a POSITA would have combined Rothbaum + Denison

Applying the KSR / MPEP 2143 rationales, all four are available:

1. Same field of endeavor, same problem. Both address theft of unattended merchandise and, critically, key management. Denison expressly states that mechanical keys "can be lost or copied easily, and the stolen or copied keys may then be used by an unauthorized person" (¶ 4–5) — which is verbatim the risk Rothbaum acknowledges when it warns that only authorized personnel should have key 40. Denison's own stated solution is "field-programmable electronic keys and locks" with "customized access limitations" restricting "when and how they can be used" (¶¶ 9–10). A POSITA facing Rothbaum's known susceptibility to copied mechanical keys would look to Denison as the published answer.

2. Known technique improving a similar device in the same way. Substituting a data-matched electronic key for a mechanical key in a key-armed alarm is the routine substitution of one known keying mechanism for another where the function (arm/disarm the same housing by the same user action) is unchanged.

3. Predictable result. Denison already performs the claimed "matching" control on a lock; Rothbaum already performs key-armed arming/disarming of a merchandise alarm. Combining them yields no new interaction between elements — the code match simply gates the arming/disarming state. That is a combination of known elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result (KSR, 550 U.S. at 416).

4. Preservation of Rothbaum's functionality. As Petitioner argued in the sibling proceeding: because Rothbaum has no automatically-closing door and is not self-arming, a POSITA would deliberately retain Rothbaum's key-actuated arming in the modified system — the very limitation of claims 27 and 32 — while adding Denison's code-matched disarming. Code-matched arming/disarming was itself conventional in the art at the priority date (home alarm PINs, vehicle alarms), reinforcing obviousness.

5. Reasonable expectation of success. Both references deploy the same building blocks — a microcomputer, a non-volatile memory, and an infrared data interface (Denison ¶¶ 10, 39; the '452's own IR light-pipe disclosure). The '452 patent itself concedes that "other types of communication systems … including for example, electrical conduction and magnetic induction may also be utilized," i.e., the communication modality is a design choice.

5. Grounds 2 and 3 — claims 20 and 21

The FWD found claim 20 obvious over Rothbaum + Denison + Galant (US 6,308,928) and claim 21 obvious over Rothbaum + Denison + Uchida (JP 1997-259368). Both are dependent claims off claim 1, so the added limitation is narrow and the third reference supplies only that narrow feature.

Flagged as unverified: I could not obtain the text of claims 20 and 21, nor the Board's mapping of Galant/Uchida, in this session. The structural inference available from the ground table is that Galant and Uchida were cited for discrete secondary features (e.g., a particular port/contact or insertion geometry, or a particular indicator/status arrangement) rather than for the core code-match architecture. These two claims should be verified against the 55-page FWD before being relied on, but they are immaterial to the independent claims.

6. Cumulative / alternative combinations available on the same record

The family-wide pattern is dispositive of the § 103 posture: the same specification has now been held obvious over Rothbaum + Denison across multiple siblings, with Belden standing by as independent § 102 art.

7. InVue's counterarguments and why the Board rejected them

1. "Vending machines are not analogous to retail merchandise security." InVue conceded at the sibling oral argument that Denison is analogous art and reframed its objection as a failure of the motivation-to-combine rationale (Tr. 94–97). The Board accepted Denison's key-management problem statement as supplying the rationale.
2. Claim construction to narrow "programmable key." Adopted in the sibling, but counterproductive here — it reads Denison's "key operation limits" (time/use expiration, ¶ 60) directly into the claim term.
3. Evidentiary burden / "alleged" supporting evidence. Raised in the Notice of Appeal as a general challenge, not tied to any specific claim limitation.
4. Objective indicia of non-obviousness. None identified in the materials retrieved. Critically, InVue's Notice of Appeal enumerates only claim-construction, prior-art, burden, and legal-error issues — it does not identify any secondary-considerations evidence. That is consistent with there being no meaningful objective-indicia record for the '452.

8. Bottom line for a § 103 opinion

1. Claims 1–35 of US 9,576,452 were held unpatentable under § 103(a) in a Final Written Decision dated July 16, 2019 (IPR2018-00481), primarily over Rothbaum (US 5,543,782) in view of Denison (US 2004/0201449); claim 20 additionally over Galant (US 6,308,928) and claim 21 additionally over Uchida (JP 1997-259368).
2. The combination is sound on the merits independent of the IPR. Rothbaum supplies every "merchandise security device" element (merchandise-attached housing, alarm responsive to integrity breach, mechanical key switch for arming/disarming). Denison supplies every "programmable/keyed-code" element (external computing device generating the code, key memory, lock memory, IRDA data link, control upon code match, and timer/use-count key expiration). The single code unique to the programming station limitation of claim 32 is met by Denison's shared key/access code architecture. The motivation is supplied by Denison's own express statement of the lost/copied-mechanical-key problem — the identical problem Rothbaum's key switch exhibits.
3. Belden (US 2007/0159328) is the strongest single-reference § 103/§ 102 weapon against any '452 claim not entitled to the Dec. 14, 2006 '102 filing date, but its availability is priority-dependent and must be briefed on the '918/§ 120 chain — the Board split on exactly this point in the sibling '247 IPR.
4. Verify before relying on: the CAFC disposition in 19-2408 (unresolved here); the verbatim text and mapping for claims 20 and 21; the Board's POSITA definition in the '452 IPR; and the USPTO PatentCenter fee/cancellation status, given that the page's "Expired – Fee Related" label (with a 2026-12-14 anticipated expiration) is in tension with 35 U.S.C. § 328(b) cancellation of all claims if the appeal did not disturb the FWD.