US 10212586

I'll verify the patent details against live sources, including any 2026 Federal Circuit activity.

Let me check for any 2026 appellate activity specifically involving this patent, and the disposition of the district court case.

US 10,212,586 B2 — "Mobile terminal and control method thereof"

Note on identifiers: I read "10212586" literally as US 10,212,586 B2 and filtered out similar numbers (e.g., US 10,219,020; US 10,084,991). The full text you supplied is treated as authoritative; live sources are used only to confirm and to check for 2026 litigation.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as issued)

"A mobile terminal capable of being protected against unauthorized use by a third party without using a dedicated key device. A plurality of mobile terminals are previously registered mutually. When unlocked among them, one mobile terminal communicates with another mobile terminal in a communication range of short-range wireless communications, unlocks the above another mobile terminal, and when out of the communication range, locks it again."

Technical summary

The invention replaces the dedicated key fob of JP-A-2004-102682 (NEC) with a second registered mobile phone. Two (or more) phones are pre-registered to each other over a short-range link (Bluetooth, infrared, Wi-Fi Direct). Unlocking one phone propagates an unlock instruction to the other while in range; leaving range or user lock re-locks it. Six embodiments cover: (1) one-directional master unlock/lock; (2) mutual/bidirectional unlock; (3) a user confirmation screen before unlocking the peer (Fig. 7); (4) authentication-level switching — simple password (e.g., 3 characters) when the peer is in range, complex password (e.g., 10 characters) when out of range; (5) automatic mutual unlock while in range; and (6) a loss-prevention warning (sound, vibration, e-mail, or GPS position) when the peer leaves range.

Independent claims (plain language)

Claim 1 — Mobile terminal (apparatus). A phone with a short-range transceiver, a memory pre-storing information about another phone, and a controller that locks/unlocks the phone based on an authentication input. The controller sends a message to the other phone causing that phone to go from locked to unlocked, but only when all three conditions occur in order: (i) this phone is locked, the other phone is locked, and the other phone is in short-range range while locked; (ii) after that, short-range communication is actually performed with the other phone; and (iii) only after that communication, the authentication input is received to unlock this phone.

Claim 9 — Method. The method counterpart of claim 1: performing short-range communications; storing information about another terminal; and transmitting to the other terminal information that unlocks it, when the same three ordered conditions are met (both locked + other in range → actual short-range communication → then receipt of the authentication input).

Claim 16 — Lock state control system. A two-terminal system in which the first terminal (transceiver + memory + controller) transmits unlock information to the second terminal when the same three ordered conditions are met (both locked, second in range → short-range communication → then authentication input unlocking the first).

Dependent claims: 2/10/17 (operation includes biometrics authentication), 3/11 (signal to lock the peer based on the authentication input), 4 (prompt user for confirmation before unlocking the peer), 5/12 (self-unlock when the registered peer is in range), 6/13/18 (store two or more peer terminals), 7/14/19 (Bluetooth), 8/15/20 (infrared or Wi-Fi).

Litigation / PTAB posture (verified against live sources)

• IPR2020-00202, Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd. — filed Dec 19, 2019; challenged claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18; institution decision Jul 15, 2020; terminated–settled Apr 20, 2021 (panel: Trock, Zecher, Hudalla). Source: services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Apple-Inc-v-Maxell-Ltd-id-131163 and Google Patents family-litigation entries.
• Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 5:19-cv-00036 (E.D. Tex., Judge Schroeder) — filed Mar 15, 2019; the '586 patent was asserted against Apple's "Activation lock" and "unlock with iPhone" features (Docket No. 68). Substantial motion practice on the '586 patent (e.g., Maxell's summary-judgment motion of no invalidity over Schiffer/Kirkup, Docs. 442, 476; Apple's partial motion to dismiss, Doc. 109). The case was settled and dismissed with prejudice in April 2021 (Docs. 698–699, final judgment 04/07/2021).

2026 CAFC docket check — no match found

I searched Federal Circuit 2026 dockets and found no 2026 CAFC appeal specifically identifying US 10,212,586. The 2026 Maxell CAFC activity that surfaced involves different patents and cases — e.g. Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Nos. 26-1111 (filed Oct 29, 2025; corrected opening brief Mar 24, 2026; Samsung response brief due Jun 26, 2026), 26-1320, 26-1330, and 26-1625 — none of which list the '586 patent. The IPR2020-00202 proceeding settled and I found no resulting appeal. If a 2026 appeal exists on this specific patent, I could not verify it and am flagging that as an open caveat rather than asserting its absence.

Uncertainty / caveats

1. Claim-drafting anomaly: The issued claims were rewritten relative to the published application US 2013/0316644 A1 (which recited a "communication unit," "storage unit," and "lock control instruction unit"). As issued, claims 2–5 recite "wherein the operation includes a biometrics authentication," referring back to "predetermined operation" in claim 1 — an odd antecedent that I read as reflecting the post-grant correction, not as an error on my part.
2. Certificate of Correction was recorded 2019-10-29 per the legal events; I do not have authoritative detail on what it corrected.
3. Assignee: Google Patents lists "Maxell Ltd"; USPTO assignment records show the entity is Maxell, Ltd. (Kyoto, JP) after the 2021 merger/rename. I have no evidence of any further transfer (e.g., to a third-party monetization entity).
4. Maintenance fee for year 4 was paid 2022-08-10; I did not verify year-8 payment status.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10212586 using the sources you specified.

Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and check for any additional litigation.

Let me verify whether this patent was asserted in any other cases beyond the Apple dispute.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586 ("'586 patent")

Executive summary: Based on my searches of patent-litigation and PTAB sources, U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586 ("Mobile terminal and control method thereof") appears in exactly one district-court action and one PTAB inter partes review. Both involved the same two parties — Maxell, Ltd. (patent owner/plaintiff) and Apple Inc. (defendant/petitioner) — and both ended in a confidential settlement in March/April 2021.

1. District Court Litigation

Sources: Patexia case summary (case 5:19-cv-00036) — https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Maxell-Ltd-v-Apple-Inc-id-[123381](/patent/123381) ; UniCourt case record — https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-maxell-ltd-v-apple-inc-59177 ; complaint (D.I. 1) — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14722224/1/maxell-ltd-v-apple-inc/ ; Law360 settlement report (Mar. 23, 2021).

2. PTAB / Post-Grant Proceeding (related to the litigation)

Sources: Docket Alarm — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-00202/Apple_Inc._v._Maxell_Ltd/ ; Patexia — https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Apple-Inc-v-Maxell-Ltd-id-[131163](/patent/131163) ; PTAB termination order (Paper 32, Apr. 20, 2021) via Casetext — http://e.casetext.com/admin-law/maxell-ltd-14 . The Google Patents family page also links both the Texas case and IPR2020-00202 as this patent's litigation: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10212586](/patent/US10212586)/en

Important caveats / potential confusion to avoid

1. Do not conflate with the ITC investigation. In August 2020 Maxell filed a Section 337 complaint at the U.S. International Trade Commission against Apple (mobiles and laptops), which was terminated on settlement in April 2021. That investigation (337-TA-1214) asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,203,517; 8,982,086; 7,199,821; 10,129,590; and 10,176,848 — not 10,212,586. Note in particular that "8,982,086" is a different patent and is not to be read as "10,212,586."

   • Source: Federal Register notice — https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/xml/2021/04/14/2021-07642.xml

2. Later Maxell–Apple suits and "continuations." Maxell filed additional suits against Apple in 2020 and 2021 (including a Feb. 19, 2021 case in the W.D. Tex., Waco Division, asserting ~12 patents relating to FaceTime/Photos features). Some reporting indicates a "mobile device unlocking" patent in that later wave was a continuation in the same family as the '586 patent (e.g., U.S. 11,388,593 or U.S. 10,264,456 are listed as continuations of the '586 disclosure). I could not, within these searches, confirm that the '586 patent itself was asserted in those later 2020/2021 cases — the confirmed assertion of U.S. 10,212,586 is the 2019 E.D. Tex. action. Treat any claim that the '586 patent was separately asserted in the later Waco suits as unverified.

3. False positive to disregard: U.S. 10,212,586 was also cited in Apple's invalidity contentions/witness lists as one of the "Patents-in-Suit," consistent with the single Texas case above.

Bottom line

There is no evidence of any litigation involving U.S. 10,212,586 other than the Maxell v. Apple dispute: the E.D. Tex. case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS (filed Mar. 15, 2019; dismissed with prejudice Apr. 7, 2021 on settlement) and the corresponding PTAB review IPR2020-00202 (filed Dec. 19, 2019; instituted Jul. 15, 2020; terminated Apr. 20, 2021 on settlement). No other plaintiffs, defendants, or jurisdictions are known to me.

If you need absolute completeness, the authoritative confirmations would be the PACER docket for 5:19-cv-00036 and the USPTO PTAB docket for IPR2020-00202 (which I was able to corroborate only through secondary aggregators: Patexia, Docket Alarm, UniCourt, CourtListener, and the Google Patents family page linked above).

I'll research the PTAB proceedings for this patent, starting with the IPR case referenced in the patent's own litigation data.

I have strong data on IPR2020-00202. Let me dig into the institution decision, grounds, and any appeal.

Let me confirm the institution details, grounds, and whether any appeal touched this specific IPR.

PTAB Proceedings — US 10,212,586 ("Mobile terminal and control method thereof")

Data caveat up front. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings as of the most recent ingest, and that absence is the presumptive answer. However, the patent's own Google Patents record (the authoritative text provided) and public web sources both surface one real proceeding — IPR2020-00202, Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd. — which is listed in the patent's litigation section as "PTAB case IPR2020-00202 filed (Settlement)." Per the task instructions, I am flagging that proceeding as the one on file. I could not independently retrieve the full institution decision or the petition's ground-by-ground mapping in this session; where a fact is unverified I say so rather than fill the gap.

Proceedings overview

One (1) AIA trial proceeding has been on file against US 10,212,586: IPR2020-00202, which was instituted and then terminated on settlement (2021-04-20) before any Final Written Decision — so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 1 settled / 0 institution denied. In plain terms, the '586 patent has never been tested on the merits at the PTAB, and no claim has ever been canceled. It remains fully intact (all 20 claims), which means a defendant today cannot point to an IPR outcome that killed any asserted claim — the patent is neither "hardened" by a survivor win nor "narrowed" by a cancellation; it is simply unadjudicated. That is a caution flag, not a comfort: Apple challenged 11 claims, the Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least some of them, and then the whole thing settled out from under the trial.

IPR2020-00202 — Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2019-12-19
• Status: Terminated-Settled — instituted, then terminated after institution of trial by joint motion due to settlement (35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. § 42.74). No Final Written Decision issued.
• Judge panel: Judges Michael R. Zecher, Kevin C. Trock, and John A. Hudalla per the Board's termination order (Paper 32). Docket-aggregator records also list Minn Chung, but the Board's order specifies the Zecher/Trock/Hudalla panel for -00202 specifically (Chung sat on the related -00199 panel). The termination order was authored by Judge Hudalla.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18 (per Patexia's docket summary). Petitioner's exhibits identify the prior art relied on — including U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0041746 A1 (Kirkup), U.S. Patent No. 7,941,534 (de la Huerga), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0224882 A1 (Chin), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0040611 A1 (Griffin), and U.S. Patent No. 6,871,063 (Schiffer) — supported by the declaration of Dr. Victor Shoup (Ex. 1003). The statutory basis was § 102/§ 103 (patents and printed publications); I could not retrieve the exact claim-by-ground/statutory mapping from the petition or the decision granting institution, so I do not state which reference was mapped against which claim.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2020-07-15 ("Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review for U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586," dated July 15, 2020, quoted in Apple's Aug. 6, 2020 declaration in the parallel district court case). The Board found at least a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail as to the challenged claims. The full text/reasoning of the 2020-07-15 decision was not retrievable in this session — do not treat any claim-level institution detail as verified beyond the 2020-07-15 date and the fact that institution was granted.
• Final Written Decision: None. The proceeding terminated before the Board reached the merits. The termination order is explicit: "Although we have instituted inter partes review of the challenged patents in these proceedings, we have not yet decided the merits of these proceedings. Therefore, we determine that it is appropriate to terminate these proceedings without rendering any further decisions." No claim of the '586 was canceled, confirmed, or otherwise adjudicated. (Note: a third-party aggregator lists "Judge Writing the Final Decision: Kevin C. Trock" — that is almost certainly a data artifact; no FWD exists.)
• Settlement / termination: Terminated 2021-04-20 on a joint motion under § 317. The parties filed a Confidential Settlement and License Agreement (Ex. 1052) and moved to keep it confidential and separate under § 317(b) / 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c); the Board granted that request. The terms are confidential. The joint motion represented that the settlement resolved the IPRs and that the parallel district court case, Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:19-cv-00036 (E.D. Tex.), had been dismissed. This IPR was one of four Apple IPRs (‑00199, ‑00200, ‑00202, ‑00204) terminated together on the same settlement; the related ITC investigation against Apple was likewise terminated by settlement (Commission notice published 2021-04-14).
• Appeal: None as to IPR2020-00202. There was no FWD and therefore no appealable Board decision on this patent. (Separately, Apple filed a Federal Circuit appeal, Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., No. 21-1033 (Fed. Cir., docketed 2020-10-09); that appeal's notice references a decision denying institution in IPR2020-00597 (Patent 8,339,493) and Apple's motion sought to consolidate it with appeals 20-2132/20-2211/20-2212/20-2213. I have no evidence that 21-1033 is an appeal of IPR2020-00202, and the notice-of-appeal content points elsewhere — so do not attribute it to the '586.)
• Defensive value: This is a double-edged result for an accused infringer. Because the IPR settled after institution but before a Final Written Decision, (i) no § 315(e) estoppel attached — statutory estoppel under § 315(e)(1)/(e)(2) is triggered only by a final written decision, so Apple was never estopped; and (ii) the Board's institution-stage reasoning is public and reusable as a roadmap. The 2020-07-15 decision found a reasonable likelihood that Apple's art (Kirkup, de la Huerga, Chin, Griffin and/or Schiffer) rendered the challenged claims unpatentable — an accused infringer can mine that institution decision as persuasive authority even though it is not estoppel. Conversely, the patent owner can correctly say "the PTAB never invalidated a single claim of the '586" — so there is no canceled-claim defense to borrow.

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. There are no canceled claims and no sustained claims: claims 1–20 of the '586 all remain UNTESTED at the PTAB. The Board instituted on the Apple petition (challenging claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18) but terminated on settlement before briefing the merits to decision. Any representation that "claims X have been canceled" or "the patent survived IPR" would be false. The only merits-adjacent input is the district court record: Maxell moved for summary judgment of no invalidity under §§ 102 and 103 of claims 7, 16, and 17, targeting Apple's Schiffer-based invalidity theory (arguing "information about a mobile terminal" is not disclosed by Schiffer's "access code"). That was a district-court SJ motion in a case that settled and was dismissed before judgment — it is not a PTAB claim disposition and created no estoppel.

Estoppel landscape. Because IPR2020-00202 ended in settlement rather than a Final Written Decision, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel bars Apple or its privies from re-raising before the district court any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised. For a different, newly-sued defendant, estoppel is a non-issue entirely — nothing binds a non-petitioner. The practical consequence: the full universe of prior art is available to a defendant. The art Apple assembled (Kirkup, de la Huerga, Chin, Griffin, Schiffer) was never finally adjudicated, so no ground is "used up." A defendant can raise § 102/§ 103 art in district court and can also file its own IPR. The live caution is that the '586's priority date is 2012-05-23 (JP 2012-117105); the lengthy El-Morishita-exempt post-AIA clock has long run, so the IPR window is wide open for any qualifying petitioner.

Pattern signals. Apple Inc. is the only petitioner ever to file against the '586, and it filed a coordinated multi-patent campaign — IPR2020-00199, -00200, -00202, -00204 (all terminated together on the 2021 settlement) plus IPR2020-00597 (8,339,493; institution denied, which Apple appealed). No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears as a petitioner on the '586 — the Google Patents litigation links reference Unified Patents' data feeds, not Unified as a party. Maxell has been an aggressive, serial enforcer across district court, the ITC (multiple § 337 investigations), and post-grant proceedings, and it settled the Apple matter on the eve of trial (both the E.D. Tex. case and the PTAB trials); Maxell has likewise settled ITC actions against VIZIO (2023) and TCL (2025). The pattern is a well-resourced NPE-style licensor that litigates hard and settles at the courthouse steps — meaning a new defendant should expect pressure, not a clean invalidity record.

Recommended next steps

• Do not rely on a "canceled claims" defense — none exists. No claim of the '586 has been canceled or held invalid by the PTAB. If a demand letter asserts claims 7, 16, or 17 (the claims Maxell pressed in Maxell v. Apple), note that those claims were never adjudicated invalid; the Schiffer argument was only a Maxell summary-judgment motion in a case that settled.
• Harvest the institution decision. Obtain and quote the 2020-07-15 Decision Granting Institution in IPR2020-00202 (Paper 8/11 range). It is public and contains the Board's preliminary finding that Apple's art (at least Kirkup/de la Huerga/Chin/Griffin/Schiffer, per the exhibit list) established a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. Even without estoppel, this is the single most useful piece of ammunition against the patent — link it via PTAB E2E / Docket Alarm (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-00202/Apple_Inc._v._Maxell_Ltd/) and the Board's termination order (Paper 32, 2021-04-20, reproduced at https://e.casetext.com/admin-law/maxell-ltd-14).
• Estoppel check before you file. Confirm whether your client is a privy of Apple. If not — the general case — no § 315(e) estoppel applies, and you may raise any § 102/§ 103 ground in district court and/or in your own IPR.
• If you are contemplating a new IPR: the '586 was never subject to a FWD, so a fresh IPR (with the opportunity to cure the prior petition's deficiencies) is viable, subject to the Board's § 314(a)/§ 325(d) discretion. Watch whether the new petition presents art "the same or substantially the same" as Apple's, and be prepared to distinguish it. The statutory trial clock is one year from institution.
• Active proceedings: None on this patent as of 2026-09-28. IPR2020-00202 is terminated; there is no institution deadline, oral hearing, or FWD due date to track. The absence of any pending challenge is itself a signal — with no FWD on the books, the patent's validity is entirely open on both sides.

Bottom line for a defendant: the '586 is un-narrowed and un-hardened — a PTAB defense has neither been won nor lost. The patent owner cannot claim a validity win, and you cannot claim a canceled claim. Your best asset is the instituted-but-unresolved 2020-07-15 decision and the fact that no estoppel constrains you — every ground remains on the table.

I'll verify what the record actually shows rather than rely on memory. Let me pull the available sources.

Good — the litigation and IPR picture is now clear. Let me verify the correspondent identity, Maxell's product position, and how the databases classify the asserter.

US 10,212,586 B2 — Ownership Chain Reconstruction

Verification limitation up front: I was unable to load the USPTO Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov query results directly in this session. The reel/frame data below comes from (a) the Google Patents "Legal Events" record for US10212586, and (b) a USPTO "Patent Assignment Abstract of Title" reproduced in a PTAB exhibit for a patent recorded on the same reel/frame batch (US 10,129,590, reel 045142/0208). Reel/frame numbers and dates are cross-confirmed by two sources; correspondent-of-record data was obtainable only for reel 045142/0208. Everything I could not verify is flagged as such rather than estimated.

Inventors

• Both inventors are the only named inventors on the face of the patent and are the two assignors on the first recorded assignment ("ASSIGNORS: HIRABAYASHI, MASAYUKI; NISHIJIMA, HIDEO").
• Employees are Hitachi-group engineers, not Maxell-entity employees, because the 2013 filing sat inside the Hitachi Consumer Electronics business unit that was later folded into Hitachi Maxell.
• Unusual-pattern check: No evidence that either inventor departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and no inventor-held or inventor-assigned-back interest appears anywhere in the chain. The assignment to a corporate employer was executed 27 days post-filing and recorded ~2 months later — ordinary corporate housekeeping, not the "inventors retain then dump to a shell" pattern that precedes fire sales. Departure data is otherwise not determinable from the sources I could reach; I found no public record either way.

Original assignee

Two different entities must be distinguished here, and the record is not symmetrical:

• Assignee of original assignment (reel 030758/0043, exec. 2013‑05‑28): Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd. — the Hitachi, Ltd. subsidiary that ran Hitachi's consumer electronics business (TVs, disc/tape products, camcorders, mobile handsets for the Japanese market).
• Assignee named on the issued patent / current assignee (per Google Patents): Maxell, Ltd., 1 Koizumi, Oyamazaki, Oyamazaki-cho, Otokuni-gun, Kyoto, Japan. (That Kyoto address is independently confirmed in Maxell's own complaint caption in Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:19-cv-00036, E.D. Tex.)

Primary line of business: Maxell is a publicly listed Japanese manufacturer (Tokyo Stock Exchange) of batteries, functional materials, optical components, projectors, and consumer accessories/recording media. It is the post‑2017 rebranded descendant of Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., a company historically known for magnetic tape, floppy disks, batteries and consumer electronics.

Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear — and no evidence of one. The '586 claims (mutual short-range-wireless lock/unlock between mobile terminals) read on smartphones. Maxell does not currently market mobile phone handsets, and the litigation record shows the claims being asserted against a third party's handset: Apple's IPR petition exhibits include the iPhone Technical Specifications (EX1012) and iPhone User Guide (EX1013), i.e. the accused product is Apple's, not Maxell's. I found no Maxell product or product line identified as practicing claims 1–20.

Current status: Operating — active, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. The patent is maintained (4th-year maintenance fee paid 2022‑08‑10, large entity per recorded event) and has an adjusted expiration of 2033‑06‑24.

Assignment timeline

Five assignment events appear in the Google Patents legal-event record for this patent. All assignees/assignors are members of the Hitachi → Hitachi Maxell → Maxell corporate family, and every transfer is at the same Kyoto principal address.

• 2013‑05‑28 (executed) / recorded 2013‑07‑09 — Reel 030758/0043

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:HIRABAYASHI, MASAYUKI; NISHIJIMA, HIDEO")
  • Assignor: Masayuki Hirabayashi and Hideo Nishijima (individuals)
  • Assignee: Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd. (Japan)
  • Correspondent: not obtainable from the sources I could reach. No recurrence claim is made.
  • Context: Initial employment assignment — inventors convey to their corporate employer one month after filing.

• 2014‑08‑28 (executed) / recorded 2014‑09‑04 — Reel 033685/0883

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:HITACHI CONSUMER ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.")
  • Assignor: Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Assignee: Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. (Japan)
  • Correspondent: not obtainable.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorg — Hitachi's consumer-electronics unit consolidated into Hitachi Maxell.

• 2017‑10‑01 (executed) / recorded 2018‑01‑25 — Reel 045142/0208 (141 pages; bulk portfolio recording)

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
  • Assignee: Maxell, Ltd., 1 Koizumi, Oyamazaki, Oyamazaki-cho, Otokuni-gun, Kyoto, Japan
  • Correspondent: NADEEN NSOULI, 71 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606. ⚠️ Flagged: this is the only correspondent I could capture on this chain, and it recurs across the Maxell portfolio — the same attorney is the correspondent on the same reel/frame for US 10,129,590, a wholly unrelated Maxell patent (display/video processing) recorded in the same 141-page batch. The 71 South Wacker Drive address is the Chicago office address of Mayer Brown LLP, the firm that represents Maxell as plaintiff in the E.D. Tex. campaigns (Jamie B. Beaber et al. appear as Maxell's counsel in Maxell v. ZTE and Maxell v. Apple). Important caveat: a person named Nadeen Nsouli currently appears as a patent agent at another firm, so my firm attribution is address-based inference, not a documented firm record — treat it as strong but not conclusive. Either way, the recurrence is within one client's portfolio, not across unrelated shell LLCs.
  • Context: Change of corporate identity / portfolio housekeeping — the Maxell name change and a mass re-recording of the legacy Hitachi patent estate.

• 2021‑10‑01 (executed) / recorded 2021‑11‑29 — Reel 058255/0579

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Maxell, Ltd.
  • Assignee: Maxell Holdings, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not obtainable.
  • Context: Internal reorganization — holding-company absorption pursuant to the Maxell group restructuring.

• 2021‑10‑01 (executed) / recorded 2021‑12‑03 — Reel 058666/0407

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Maxell Holdings, Ltd.
  • Assignee: Maxell, Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not obtainable.
  • Context: Change of name only — the holding company renamed itself Maxell, Ltd. Net effect: title returns to the same legal name it left in the prior step.

No assignment out of the Maxell group is recorded. The chain terminates at Maxell, Ltd., which remains current assignee per Google Patents and is the named plaintiff in every suit I found concerning this patent.

Related (not assignments of this patent): the family page lists four later continuation filings claiming the 2012‑05‑23 priority (US 16/115,940 → US 11,388,593; US 16/170,222 → US 10,264,456; US 17/399,126 → US 11,924,633; US 18/424,997 → US 12,389,221; plus US 19/262,200 pending). These are prosecution activity, not title transfers.

Litigation / validity overlay (relevant to the transfer timing)

Note: because the IPR terminated by settlement, the '586 claims were never finally adjudicated invalid, and the license terms are confidential (kept separate under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b)).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10212586
    2012 : Priority JP2012-117105 filed
    2013 : Application filed May 1
         : Inventors assign to Hitachi Consumer Electronics
         : Reel 030758 0043 recorded Jul 9
    2014 : Consolidation into Hitachi Maxell
         : Reel 033685 0883 recorded Sep 4
    2017 : Hitachi Maxell to Maxell Ltd executed Oct 1
    2018 : Reel 045142 0208 recorded Jan 25
    2019 : Patent issued Feb 19
         : Maxell sues Apple in EDTX
         : Apple files IPR for this patent
    2020 : IPR instituted Jul 15
    2021 : Apple dispute settled
         : Merger into Maxell Holdings
         : Renamed Maxell Ltd

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
Every link (030758/0043, 033685/0883, 045142/0208, 058255/0579, 058666/0407) runs between named Japanese operating corporations sharing one Kyoto address: Hitachi Consumer Electronics → Hitachi Maxell → Maxell → Maxell Holdings → Maxell. There is no licensing-only LLC, no registered-agent service address, no Delaware/Texas single-member vehicle anywhere in the chain. The "Holdings" in Maxell Holdings, Ltd. is a Japanese kabushiki-kaisha holding company formed by merger, not a US shell — it was dissolved back into "Maxell, Ltd." two weeks later by the change-of-name recording at reel 058666/0407.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT as an entity, but note a genuine classification split.
Maxell, Ltd. does not match Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg vehicle. However, the two assertion databases disagree about Maxell:

• Unified Patents' litigation portal classifies "Maxell Ltd" as plaintiff entity type "Operating Company" (portal.unifiedpatents.com caselist entries for Maxell E.D. Tex. actions, e.g. 5:25-cv-00052).
• The *Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies Maxell Ltd. v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.), 5:25-cv-00097 (E.D. Tex.), as "NPE Status: Non Practicing Entity"* (npe.law.stanford.edu/case/307190).

What is not in dispute is volume: Maxell is a high-frequency plaintiff against Apple, Samsung, Huawei, ZTE and LG in E.D. Tex., plus the ITC and the Unified Patent Court, and it is the target of many IPRs (IPR2018-00236, IPR2018-00904 by Olympus, IPR2020-00199/-00200/-00202/-00204, IPR2025-01307 through -01316 by Samsung). Its own amended complaint pleads that Maxell "actively enforces its patents through licensing and/or litigation." That is licensing-driven enforcement — but by a manufacturer, not a shell.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — WEAK / PARTIALLY PRESENT (recurrence within one client's portfolio only).
Only one correspondent is capturable: Nadeen Nsouli, 71 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606, on reel 045142/0208 (recorded 2018‑01‑25). That same individual/address appears as correspondent on the same reel/frame for US 10,129,590, an unrelated Maxell patent in the same 141-page bulk recording. So the recurrence is real, but it recurs across the pages of a single assignor's portfolio-wide recording, not across differently-named shell LLCs. The address is the Chicago office of Mayer Brown LLP, Maxell's litigation counsel. Under the stated methodology ("the shell LLCs change; the lawyer running them usually doesn't"), this pattern is the inverse of the NPE tell: one law firm servicing one long-term corporate client. Correspondents for the other four reels are unknown to me, so full assessment is unclear.

4. Cascading transfers through chained LLCs in <24 months — NOT PRESENT.
The five transfers span 2013 → 2021 (8 years). The only back-to-back pair is the 2021 merger (recorded 11‑29) immediately followed by the name change (recorded 12‑03) — a 4-day gap, but between the same two group entities and with no LLC, no new principal, and no change in correspondent address. Not a cascade in the sense that matters.

5. Pre-litigation transfer within 6 months of the first suit — NOT PRESENT.
First infringement suit naming this patent: 2019‑03‑15. The most recent prior transfer was executed 2017‑10‑01 (recorded 2018‑01‑25) — roughly 17 months / 14 months before suit. Nothing was recorded in the six months before filing. Contrast with the clean-standing pattern one expects from an arranged assertion chain; this chain was arranged by a corporate reorg that happened to precede the campaign.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Hitachi Consumer Electronics, Hitachi Maxell, Maxell Holdings or Maxell appears in any source I reached. Maxell is a going concern paying maintenance fees (2022‑08‑10) and filing new IPR-triggering suits in 2023–2025.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT as structured; UNCLEAR as a matter of substance.
Classic privateering requires an operating company to feed patents to an intermediary NPE that asserts on its behalf. Here no intermediary exists: Maxell, Ltd. is itself the named plaintiff and the record owner through every link to today. The counter-consideration is that Maxell has exited the handset/consumer-electronics markets in which these claims read, so its enforcement of legacy R&D against current smartphone vendors has the economics of monetization without the corporate form of an NPE. I found no SEC filing (Maxell is TSE-listed, not SEC-registered) and no EFF/Patent Progress coverage showing a Maxell-to-NPE funding arrangement. Call it unclear, leaning not present.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at Maxell, Ltd. (per reel 058666/0407 and the current-assignee field). It does not end at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN. The patent has been asserted, not neutralized — it was in the 2019 Apple complaint and survived the Apple IPR only by settlement.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification: The ownership record itself is clean of every structural NPE tell — no shell transfer, no LLC, no cascading reassignment, no pre-suit transfer within 6 months; the five recorded instruments (reels 030758/0043, 033685/0883, 045142/0208, 058255/0579, 058666/0407; executed 2013‑05‑28 through 2021‑10‑01) are all internal reorganizations among Japanese operating corporations ending at Maxell, Ltd., and the single recurring correspondent captured — Nadeen Nsouli at 71 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, on reel 045142/0208, also of record for US 10,129,590 on the same reel — shows one counsel servicing one corporate client, not a lawyer operating a network of shells. The call rests instead on assertion behavior and the absence of a practicing product: Maxell pleaded in Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple, No. 5:19-cv-00036 (filed 2019‑03‑15) that it enforces "through licensing and/or litigation," the '586 claims were asserted against Apple's iPhone (IPR exhibits EX1012/EX1013) with no Maxell product identified as embodying them, the IPR terminated by confidential settlement on 2021‑04‑20 with no merits ruling, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database tags Maxell as a Non Practicing Entity while Unified Patents tags it an Operating Company — a split I am reporting rather than resolving. This is monetization-by-manufacturer, not a classic troll: the counter-evidence (a real, listed, product-shipping company owning the patent end-to-end) is substantial, and readers should treat the "moderate" label as a boundary case rather than a characterization of Maxell as a shell.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center · assignment.uspto.gov patent search — search patent number 10212586; confirm reel 045142/0208's correspondent field and retrieve correspondent data for reels 030758/0043, 033685/0883, 058255/0579 and 058666/0407, which I could not read in this session.

I'll research this patent and its cited prior art. Let me start with targeted searches to verify the patent and key references.

Let me gather details on the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 10,212,586 B2

1. Patent Identification (verified against the record)

Source: the authoritative full text supplied for this analysis (Google Patents mirror of the USPTO record), https://patents.google.com/patent/US10212586/en. Note: I did not retrieve a separate USPTO PatentCenter page beyond this record; all statements below are grounded in the supplied text plus the search results cited inline. No similar patent numbers were substituted.

Independent claim gist: Claim 1 (and mirrored method claim 9 / system claim 16) covers a mobile terminal with a short-range wireless transceiver, a memory pre-storing info about another mobile terminal, and a controller that, when three ordered "conditions" are met, transmits information to the other terminal to switch it from locked→unlocked. The conditions are: (1) the mobile terminal is locked, the other terminal is locked, and the other terminal is in range while locked; (2) after that, short-range communication is performed with the other terminal; (3) after the communication, an authentication input is received at the mobile terminal to switch it from locked→unlocked. Dependent claims add biometrics (2/10/17), out-of-range re-locking (3/11), user confirmation (4), self-unlock on detection (5/12), two-or-more registered devices (6/13/18), Bluetooth (7/14/19), and infrared/Wi-Fi (8/15/20).

A note on method: the record lists 16 patent citations (examiner-cited are marked *; several are JP counterparts of the U.S. references). § 102 anticipation is a demanding test — a single reference must disclose every element, arranged as claimed. No reference below appears to anticipate independent claims 1/9/16 in their issued form; the closest references are better characterized as § 103 obviousness candidates. I flag that distinction explicitly for each entry.

2. Tier 1 — Most relevant prior art

(a) US 2004/0046638 A1 — NEC Corp. — (JP-A-2004-102682 counterpart: JP 2004102682 A)

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0046638 A1, "Terminal lock system comprising key device carried by user and terminal-associated device incorporated in terminal device," NEC Corp. JP counterpart: JP 2004102682 A, "Terminal lock system and terminal lock method," NEC Corp.
• Dates: US priority 2002-09-10; US publication 2004-03-11. JP priority 2002-09-10; JP publication 2004-04-02.
• Description: A portable key device with short-range radio (Bluetooth/WLAN) and a terminal-associated device built into the protected terminal. The terminal-associated device requests connection to the key device and locks/inhibits the terminal if the key-device info does not match registered info, or if no short-range connection to the key device is confirmed. The user need take no action; moving out of range locks the terminal. (Web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040046638 ; FPO: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2004/0046638.html)
• § 102 assessment: This is the reference expressly discussed in the patent's Background (identified as JP-A-2004-102682). It discloses short-range-wireless-based locking against unauthorized use and lock-on-out-of-range. It does not anticipate claims 1/9/16, because (i) it requires a dedicated key device, not "another mobile terminal," and (ii) it lacks the claimed three-condition ordering in which the local authentication input occurs after the short-range communication is performed. It may be relevant to dependent claim 3/11-type re-locking concepts and to the general lock/unlock-on-proximity concept.

(b) US 2006/0224882 A1 — [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) — (JP counterpart: JP 2006285965 A)

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0224882 A1, "Method and system for unlocking a computing device," Microsoft Corp. JP counterpart: JP 2006285965 A.
• Dates: US priority 2005-03-31; US publication 2006-10-05. JP publication 2006-10-19.
• Description: A first computing device is password-unlocked by entering its password; a second (password-locked) device associated with the same user is coupled to the first (wirelessly or wired). If the devices recognize each other via a pre-established recognition partnership (device identifiers/GUIDs, key-certificate, or password verification), the second device is automatically unlocked without the user entering the second device's password. (Web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060224882 ; FPO: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0224882.html)
• § 102 assessment: This is the closest reference on the core inventive concept (unlock one device via a pre-registered companion device). But the sequence is inverted relative to claim 1: Microsoft unlocks the first device first, then couples it to the locked device, whereas claim 1 requires both devices locked, then the short-range communication, and only then the local authentication input. Microsoft therefore does not appear to anticipate claims 1/9/16 as issued, but is a strong § 103 reference. It is potentially more directly relevant to dependent claims that add multiple companion devices (6/13/18), since it enumerates PC/PDA/phone/camera, and to claim 5/12 (self-unlock on detection of a recognized device).

(c) US 2011/0086615 A1 — Cambridge Silicon Radio Ltd. — "Device Security"

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0086615 A1, "Device Security," Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited.
• Dates: Priority 2009-04-07; publication 2011-04-14. (Granted as US 8,818,335 B2.)
• Description: A mobile phone paired (Bluetooth) with another device. While the paired device is detectable, the phone stays unlocked; when the paired device goes out of range, the phone locks automatically and can be re-unlocked only by a passcode (or when the connection is re-established). (Web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110086615)
• § 102 assessment: Discloses the proximity-lock/unlock and re-lock-on-out-of-range concepts (relevant to claim 3/11), but the subject that locks/unlocks is the phone itself reacting to a companion device — it does not disclose one mobile terminal transmitting to unlock another mobile terminal under the claimed ordered conditions. Does not anticipate claims 1/9/16.

(d) US 2013/0183936 A1 — Entrust, Inc.

• Full citation: U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0183936 A1, "Method and apparatus for remote portable wireless device authentication," Entrust, Inc.
• Dates: Priority 2012-01-17; publication 2013-07-18. (Note: priority is after the '586 priority date of 2012-05-23 — see caveat below.)
• Description: Uses a smartphone to authenticate a user to a smart-card-reader emulation device (a computer) over Bluetooth. A user-selectable signal strength sets the proximity range; when the phone moves away the computer locks, and when in range the computer is unlocked — with authentication data (unique user info) exchanged. (Web: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130183936A1)
• § 102 assessment: Relevant to proximity-based lock/unlock and to Bluetooth-based authentication of another device. Two problems as anticipation art: (i) its effective date (2012-01-17 priority) is only ~4 months before the '586 priority date and years before the '586 filing (2013-05-01) — so it is prior art only under § 102(a)/(e) reasoning tied to the '586 filing date, not the priority date; and (ii) the "another device" is a computer/reader-emulation device, not "another mobile terminal," and its unlock is automatic by proximity, not by a local authentication-input-triggered transmission. Does not anticipate claims 1/9/16.

3. Tier 2 — References relevant to dependent claims / secondary concepts

Source for these entries: the citation list in the supplied full text of US 10,212,586, cross-referenced with Google Patents pages where retrieved.

4. Bottom line

• No cited reference anticipates independent claim 1 (or its method/system counterparts 9 and 16) on its own. The combination that claim 1 uniquely requires — (i) two mobile terminals (not a dedicated key fob or a computer), both locked, with the second in range while locked; (ii) short-range communication performed next; and (iii) a local authentication input at the first terminal occurring after that communication, triggering transmission to unlock the second — is not fully shown in any single reference.
• Microsoft US 2006/0224882 A1 is the most substantively relevant reference (unlock a companion device through a pre-registered "recognition partnership"), but its order (unlock-then-couple) differs from claim 1's couple-then-authenticate order; treat it as the primary § 103 reference, and note it also bears on claims 6/13/18 (multiple companion devices) and 5/12 (self-unlock on detection).
• NEC US 2004/0046638 A1 / JP 2004102682 A is the reference the patent itself distinguishes (dedicated key device) and is likewise § 103 material, not anticipation.
• Dependent claims with the best single-reference exposure are 2/10/17 (biometrics — Acco Brands US 2006/0123242 A1) and 7/14/19 (Bluetooth — CSR US 2011/0086615 A1, Entrust US 2013/0183936 A1), with 6/13/18 (multiple devices — Microsoft) also worth a close read.
• Caveat on Entrust US 2013/0183936 A1: its 2012-01-17 priority is after the '586 priority date (2012-05-23), so its availability as prior art depends on the '586 filing date (2013-05-01), not the priority date — verify the § 102 sub-section and any intervening-publication/priority-document nuances before relying on it.
• Confidence note: I retrieved and verified full or extensive text for the Tier 1 references and the Microsoft/NEC/CSR/Entrust references; entries for Friedlaender (US 2011/0195665), Panasonic (US 2010/0144275), Apigy (US 2012/0280790), Omron (US 2007/0287423), and Delalat (US 2006/0128305) are described from the citation record and titles only, and should be re-verified against their full texts before being asserted as anticipation.

Finally, none of the references above should be conflated with the art asserted in IPR2020-00202 (Apple petition, settled) or in E.D. Tex. 5:19-cv-00036; those are separate evidentiary records and were not analyzed here.

I'll analyze the obviousness of US10212586B2 by examining the prior art cited on the patent page. Let me research the key references.

Let me research additional key references from the prior art list.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10212586 B2 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Note on identifiers/dates. All reference numbers, dates, and titles below are reproduced literally from the "Citations" and "Family Cites Families" sections of the US10212586B2 page. The application (US13/874,535) was filed 2013‑05‑01 with earliest priority 2012‑05‑23, so it is an AIA patent and § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) govern. I flag below where a reference published after 2012‑05‑23 but is nevertheless available only as § 102(a)(2) art (effectively filed earlier).

1. The claim to be attacked

Claim 1 (the only independent apparatus claim; claim 9 is its method mirror, claim 16 the system mirror) requires, in substance:

1. A mobile terminal switchable between unlocked and locked states (locked = a predetermined operation is limited);
2. a short‑range wireless transceiver;
3. a memory that previously stores information about another mobile terminal;
4. a controller that switches state based on an authentication input; and
5. when three conditions are cumulatively met, the controller transmits information to the another mobile terminal to switch it from locked → unlocked, the conditions being:
   • C1: the mobile terminal is locked, the other terminal is locked, and the other terminal is in short‑range communication range while locked;
   • C2: after C1, the two terminals perform short‑range wireless communications; and
   • C3: after C2, the mobile terminal receives the authentication input to switch itself locked → unlocked.

The practical thrust: two mutually registered handsets sit side‑by‑side both locked; one is authenticated; the authenticating handset then unlocks the other. Everything else (claims 2–8, 10–15, 17–20) is either the same subject matter or routine add‑ons.

2. The relevant prior art on the face of the patent

Two are the most probative: NEC's US 20040046638A1/JP2004102682A, which the patent itself cites as the Background (the "dedicated key device" system), and Microsoft's US 20060224882A1, which teaches cross‑device unlocking between two user‑associated computers. (The patent's own prosecution also involved JP Office Actions dated 3 Mar 2015, 30 Jun 2015, and 28 Feb 2017, listed in the Non‑Patent Citations.)

3. Combination A (primary): NEC US 20040046638A1 in view of Microsoft US 20060224882A1

3a. What NEC teaches — the "locked while you scan" half

NEC discloses a terminal lock system of a portable key device (short‑range radio unit; Bluetooth/radio LAN explicitly recited) and a terminal‑associated device incorporated in a phone/PC/PDA. Per the record:

• "the terminal‑associated device requests a connection to the key device through the short‑range radio communications, and inhibits the terminal device … from being used if … the terminal‑associated device is not confirmed as being connected to the key device through the short‑range radio communications";
• "when the user … moves away … until the terminal‑associated device and the key device are no longer capable of connecting …, the terminal‑associated device locks the terminal device against use";
• "Information of key device 200 is registered in advance in terminal‑associated device 100" (i.e., a memory storing pre‑registered peer information, element 3);
• "any short‑range radio communication techniques that are generally in widespread use can be used … such as Bluetooth, radio LAN" (elements covering claims 7/8).

That maps cleanly onto elements 1–3, 5 and conditions C1/C2 of claim 1: a locked terminal that scans for its pre‑registered counterpart while both are in short‑range range.

3b. What Microsoft teaches — the "authenticate once, unlock the other" half

Microsoft (US 20060224882A1) is closer still to the remaining elements. Its FIG. 2/3 flow states: "a first computing device and a second computing device are password locked" (C1); "the first computing device is password unlocked … when the user enters the password associated with the first computing device" (authentication input, element 4/C3); "the first computing device couples to the second computing device … either wirelessly or through a wired connection" (C2); and "the second computing device is automatically password unlocked without any information associated with a password for the second computing device being entered by the user," recognizing the peer "based on corresponding device identifiers" (e.g., GUIDs) or a key/certificate partnership (element 5, the transmitted unlock information; elements 1–3, since the devices expressly include "personal digital assistant (PDA) 210, … mobile telephone 220"). The application text even gives the wireless‑proximity example: the user "may enter the vicinity of personal computer 200 with PDA 210. PDA 210 may be wirelessly coupled to personal computer 200 … Thus, PDA 210 causes personal computer 200 to become automatically password unlocked."

3c. The motivation to combine is on the face of the patent

The patent's own "SUMMARY" admits the defect of NEC: "the user needs to always carry the dedicated key device having a communication function." That is an express statement of the problem, and it is a textbook KSR "design incentive" / "known problem" motivation. One of ordinary skill faced with NEC's dedicated‑key drawback and Microsoft's teaching that any general computing device (PDA, mobile telephone) can serve as the unlocking peer would predictably replace NEC's special‑purpose key with a second mobile terminal. Both references are in the same field of endeavor (protecting a device from unauthorized use via authentication plus short‑range proximity), so they are analogous art. The resulting system — one handset scans while locked, the user authenticates, the first handset signals the second to unlock — is a mere combination of NEC's proximity‑gated locking with Microsoft's authentication‑gated cross‑unlock, with no change in the respective functions and no unexpected result.

3d. The one arguable difference and why it does not save the claim

The only real gap is ordering: claim 1 requires the authentication input after the short‑range contact (C3 after C2), whereas Microsoft's FIG. 3 unlocks first and couples second. NEC, however, discloses the locked‑then‑connect sequence (the terminal‑associated device attempts the connection while the terminal is inhibited), so combining NEC's sequence with Microsoft's authentication trigger yields the claimed order. Reordering a known two‑step unlocking sequence is a predictable variation, and "a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions" (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). Patentability would also not be rescued by the ordering alone under the long‑standing rule that mere rearrangement of steps, absent a new or unexpected result, is not inventive (In re Ames).

Conclusion A: claim 1 is obvious over NEC US 20040046638A1 (or JP2004102682A) in view of Microsoft US 20060224882A1 (or JP2006285965A).

4. Combination B (alternative/hostile): Microsoft as the primary reference

Microsoft alone is arguably anticipatory‑adjacent, so it is worth noting as a § 103 primary reference:

• Both devices locked at start → C1;
• mutual recognition information pre‑stored (GUID/key‑certificate) → element 3;
• coupling wirelessly → element 2 / C2;
• *automatic unlocking of the second device without re‑entering its password, as a consequence of authenticating the first → element 5;
• the enumerated devices include mobile telephone 220 and PDA 210 → "mobile terminal."

The residual differences (that the coupled device is itself a "mobile terminal" and that the first device is authenticated after rather than before coupling) are supplied by NEC, Panasonic US20100144275A1 (short‑range wireless authentication of a "wireless key" against "controlled devices," unlocking on adequate reception strength and locking when below threshold), or merely by common sense. Combination B therefore also renders claim 1 obvious, with the same motivation (eliminating the dedicated key device and enabling one authentication to cover a user's multiple devices).

5. Dependent claims

Because all appendant claims depend from an obvious independent claim, they rise or fall with it. Even standing alone, each is met:

• Claim 2 / claim 10 / claim 17 (biometrics): Acco Brands US 20060123242A1 teaches exactly this — a biometric capture/verification module that "send[s] a verification result through a wireless connection to a wireless module … configured to automatically actuate a security device to lock or unlock." Microsoft also contemplates "biometric sensors, voice recognition." Adding biometrics to NEC/Microsoft is a known alternative authentication modality.
• Claim 3 (transmit a signal to put the other terminal back into locked state): NEC inherently locks the terminal when the key device leaves range; Panasonic US 20100144275A1 expressly "lock[s] if … the reception strength of a radio wave received from the wireless key is less than the predetermined value." Sending the lock‑instruction over the same short‑range link is the converse of the disclosed unlock signal.
• Claim 4 (request user confirmation before unlocking the other terminal): Apigy US 20120280790A1 discloses a second device attempting to operate a lock, the owner being "notified with relevant information pertinent to the requestor and presented with an option to unlock the door for the requestor." (Apigy's effective filing is its provisional 61/481,518, filed 2011‑05‑02, so notwithstanding its 2012‑11‑08 publication it remains available as § 102(a)(2) art.) Motivating combination: user discretion/security.
• Claim 5 (self‑unlock when the registered peer is in range while the terminal is locked): this is NEC's key‑device behavior ("key device 200 acquires a right to use terminal‑associated device 100" once in range) combined with Microsoft's recognition‑based unlock; Friedlaender US 20110195665A1 ("presence detection") and CSR US 20110086615A1 ("Device Security") are further cumulative art.
• Claim 6 / claim 13 / claim 18 (two or more other terminals): Panasonic US 20100144275A1 deals with "three controlled devices 62a, 62b, and 62c … in a zone wherein they can conduct wireless communications," and the patent's own specification concedes "three or more mobile terminals can be further locked and unlocked." NEC likewise contemplates multiple registered devices.
• Claims 7–8 / 14–15 / 19–20 (Bluetooth; infrared or Wi‑Fi): NEC expressly recites "Bluetooth, radio LAN," and the patent's own FIG. 1 discussion adds "Bluetooth (trademark), infrared rays, and Wi‑Fi Direct." These are mere selections of known short‑range bearers.
• Claims 9–15 (method) and 16–20 (system): mirrors of the apparatus claims; the same NEC + Microsoft combination discloses the corresponding steps/terminals. RIM US 20120040611A1 (NFC mode switching) and Entrust US 20130183936A1 (remote portable wireless device authentication) are cumulative for the transceiver/authentication limitations. Note Entrust US20130183936A1 has an effective date of 2012‑01‑17 (before 2012‑05‑23) and is thus § 102(a)(2) art despite its 2013‑07‑18 publication.

6. Secondary considerations / rebuttal

• No unexpected result. The asserted benefit — protection "without using the dedicated key device" — is precisely the predictable consequence of replacing NEC's key with Microsoft's general‑purpose peer device. That undercuts an "unexpected results" argument.
• No teaching away. NEC is silent or neutral as to using a second handset as the unlocking peer; nothing in NEC or Microsoft disparages the combination. If anything, NEC's "few matters to be taken into account for mutual connectability" language invites substitution.
• Strong commercial-success/privity evidence would be needed to rebut; none appears on the face of the patent. The record does show contentiousness (PTAB IPR2020‑00202, petitioner APPLE, INC.; and Texas E.D. Tex. case 5:19‑cv‑00036), but that is litigation history, not evidence of non‑obviousness.

Caveat (honesty about uncertainty): I have reviewed the reference summaries available from the patent page and the public full‑text snippets I retrieved; I did not independently verify every paragraph of each reference against its native specification, and I cannot confirm how the examiner actually applied these references during prosecution or how a court/PTAB would treat the ordering limitation in C3. If a fact‑finder credited the specific detect‑while‑locked → then authenticate → then cross‑unlock ordering as producing a non‑predictable benefit, that would be the strongest — and essentially only — ground on which claim 1 could survive this combination.

7. Bottom line

• Claim 1 (and thus claims 9 and 16): obvious over US 20040046638A1 / JP2004102682A (NEC) in view of US 20060224882A1 / JP2006285965A (Microsoft); alternatively, over US 20060224882A1 as primary with US 20040046638A1 and/or US 20100144275A1 (Panasonic) supplying the locked‑while‑scanning short‑range element.
• Motivation: NEC's admitted dedicated‑key inconvenience (stated in the patent itself) plus Microsoft's explicit teaching that any user‑associated computing device can unlock a peer, yielding a predictable, functionally unchanged combination (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417).
• Dependent claims 2–8 / 10–15 / 17–20: obvious with US 20060123242A1 (biometrics), US 20120280790A1 (user confirmation), US 20100144275A1 (lock‑on‑out‑of‑range; multiple devices), and the express Bluetooth/radio‑LAN/infrared disclosures of NEC.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10212586/en (citations/claims), https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040046638 (NEC), https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060224882 (Microsoft), https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060123242A1 (Acco Brands), https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100144275 (Panasonic), https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120280790 (Apigy).