US 10222269

I'll search for this specific patent number.

Let me check for litigation/CAFC dockets and the actual claim text.

Let me try to retrieve the actual claim text from another source.

US Patent 10,222,269 — Analyst Summary

Identifier confirmation: The number was searched literally as 10,222,269 (US10222269B2). Results consistently return a single Samsung patent. Note the important near-miss below.

---

Bibliographic data

The invention claims §119(a) benefit of the Korean application (per the patent's own Cross-Reference section, "filed … on Apr. 9, 2015").

---

Abstract (verbatim)

"An electronic device and method are provided for sensing a touch or hovering event, where sensor variations due to environmental temperatures are minimized. The method includes operations for measuring a temperature of a portion of an electronic device, setting a sensing state reference level of a grip sensor according to the measured temperature, and determining a sensing state of an external object for the electronic device according to a result of a comparison between an output level from the grip sensor and the sensing state reference level of the grip sensor."

---

Technological context (from the specification)

The patent addresses capacitive grip/proximity sensing in portable electronic devices, used among other things for SAR (specific absorption rate) compliance — i.e., reducing radiated output when the device is near the body. The stated problem: capacitive sensors drift with environmental temperature (the spec gives an example of roughly 0.25 pF deviation over −20 °C to 60 °C), which causes false grip/hover detections. Because the hover-detection threshold is set relatively low, even small temperature-driven drift causes malfunctions. The disclosed fix is temperature-based threshold tracking (or equivalently, temperature-based correction of the applied sensing level). Two variants are disclosed:

1. Adaptive threshold (FIGS. 11–14): the sensing-state reference level is adjusted per temperature section (e.g., −20 °C to 50 °C divided into 10 °C sections), using either a discrete preset value per section (FIGS. 13) or a linear slope across a section (FIG. 14).
2. Adaptive sensing level (FIGS. 15–17): the reference level is fixed, and the sensing level applied to the sensor is corrected instead, via a variable capacitor array switched in according to temperature.

The temperature itself may be measured by a sensor placed away from heat-generating components, or taken from external/positional temperature information or a battery gauge.

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Caveat on sourcing: The full-text fetch available to me was truncated before the claims section, so I do not have the literal, issued claim language. The four independent claims below are reconstructed from the patent's Summary of the Invention, which typically — but not guaranteed — tracks the independent claims. Treat this as a high-confidence characterization, not a verbatim claim reproduction. The exact count and numbering of independent claims could not be verified.

Independent claim type 1 — Method (adaptive threshold):

1. Measure a temperature of a portion of the electronic device.
2. Set the sensing state reference level of the sensor based on that measured temperature.
3. Determine a sensing state of an external object (e.g., contact vs. hover vs. no-proximity) by comparing the sensor's output level against the reference level that was just set.

In plain terms: the trip-point moves with temperature, so the sensor trips at the same physical condition regardless of how hot or cold the phone is.

Independent claim type 2 — Method (adaptive sensing level):

1. Measure a temperature of a portion of the electronic device.
2. Correct the sensing level applied to the sensor according to the measured temperature.
3. Determine the sensing state by comparing the sensor's output (at the corrected sensing level) against a preset (fixed) reference level.

In plain terms: instead of moving the trip-point, shift the signal itself — the net effect is the same comparison outcome.

Independent claim type 3 — Electronic device (adaptive threshold):

• A conductive pattern (which may be part of, or shared with, an antenna pattern);
• a first sensor that senses a capacitive component of the conductive pattern;
• a second sensor that measures a temperature of a portion of the electronic device; and
• a controller that receives temperature information from the second sensor or temperature information based on the device's position, sets a sensing state reference level of the first sensor accordingly, and determines the sensing state of an external object by comparing the first sensor's output level with that reference level.

Independent claim type 4 — Electronic device (adaptive sensing level):

• Same architecture (conductive pattern, first sensor, second sensor, controller), but the controller corrects the sensing level applied to the first sensor and determines the sensing state by comparing the first sensor's output at the corrected level against a preset reference level.

Dependent-claim subject matter indicated by the specification includes: the reference level comprising multiple thresholds (no-proximity / contact / one or more hovering states); temperature-sectioned preset reference values; linearly sloped reference levels; variable temperature-section intervals; the temperature sensor being positioned apart from heating/insulating parts; use of external or battery-derived temperature; and the variable capacitor implementation.

---

⚠️ Near-miss warning (do not conflate)

A search hit surfaced U.S. Patent No. 10,269,222 B2 — a different patent, subject to an inter partes review petition, directed to a wearable reality-overlay device (obviousness grounds over Douris in view of Rodriguez). "10,269,222" and "10,222,269" are distinct patents with unrelated subject matter and should not be treated as the same document. Similarly, several Samsung litigation items (a $81M 5G SEP appeal, a $78.5M Texas verdict, and the Apple design-patent matter) surfaced but are not tied to US 10,222,269.

---

Litigation / post-grant activity

No CAFC 2026 docket entry, district court action, or IPR specifically naming US 10,222,269 was found in the searches performed. I searched for the patent number in combination with Federal Circuit, litigation, court case, and 2026 terms, and none returned a matching proceeding. I want to be explicit: this is a negative search result, not affirmative proof of absence — the search did not exhaustively query PACER, the CAFC docket, or the USPTO PTAB system directly.

Confidence and limitations

• High confidence: title, patent/application/publication numbers, inventors, assignee, filing date, priority date, issue date, abstract, and general technical content (all corroborated by the full patent text and by Patent Leaderboard inventor records returning "10222269 | Method and apparatus for operating sensor of electronic device | 2019-03-05").
• Moderate confidence: the four independent-claim summaries (derived from the Summary section, not the literal claims).
• Low confidence / unverified: exact claim count, exact independent-claim numbering, and the absence of any 2026 litigation involving this specific patent.

I'll search for litigation records involving US Patent 10,222,269 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me do a few more targeted searches to confirm before concluding.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 10,222,269

Patent Identification (as confirmed)

Litigation Findings

No litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 10,222,269.

I searched patent-litigation-focused sources, including the Unified Patents litigation caselist (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation), CAFC opinions/orders, PACER-related aggregators, and general litigation coverage. I was unable to locate any district court case, ITC investigation, PTAB post-grant proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM), or Federal Circuit appeal in which U.S. Patent No. 10,222,269 is asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue.

Because no case was found, I cannot provide the requested fields (plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, status) — there are no records to populate.

Important Caveats and Deduplication Notes

1. Do not confuse with similarly-numbered patents. My searches surfaced several look-alike identifiers that are not the patent at issue:

   • U.S. Patent No. 10,269,222 — appears in an IPR petition involving a "wearable device" (Douris/Rodriguez grounds). This is a different patent and unrelated.
   • U.S. Patent No. 10,224,359 and 10,222,067 / 10,222,069 style numbers appearing in unrelated PTAB and corporate-record documents.
   • A UK Companies House number "10222269" (Arturo's Riverside Limited) and various invoice/check numbers "10222269" appeared in search results — these are coincidental numeric matches, not patents.

   None of these should be treated as litigation involving the instant patent.

2. Enforcement context. US 10,222,269 is a Samsung-assigned, sensor-temperature-compensation patent. Samsung has been a frequent defendant in patent litigation, but this patent does not appear in the asserted-patent lists of the Samsung cases that surfaced (e.g., Scramoge Technology v. Samsung (2:22-cv-00015); Massively Broadband v. Samsung (2:25-cv-00608); Maxell v. Samsung; Netlist v. Samsung). It likewise does not appear among Samsung's own asserted patents.

3. Searches may be incomplete. My tool-based research reached its step limit before I could conclusively query every commercial docket database (e.g., Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, RPX Empower full-text). The absence of results is therefore reported as "none found," not as an affirmative certification that no suit exists. A definitive negative would require a paid docket search (Docket Navigator/Lexis) keyed on the exact patent number "10,222,269."

Recommended Verification Steps

If a conclusive litigation clearance is required, I suggest:

• Docket Navigator or Lex Machina full-text search on "10,222,269".
• PACER "Patent" nature-of-suit query filtered by patent number.
• USPTO PTAB (PTAB Center / P-TACTS) search for the patent number to catch any post-grant challenge.
• Unified Patents litigation caselist and RPX Empower patent-specific pages.

If you can share access to one of those systems or a specific docket, I can analyze the results in detail.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before concluding.

No hits so far. Let me run a few more targeted checks to be thorough.

One more check against PTAB/docket aggregators.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,222,269: zero. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web checks surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or Federal Circuit appeal naming U.S. Patent No. 10,222,269. Breakdown by status (active / claims invalidated / claims sustained / settled / institution denied): 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore not the "claims 1-5 are canceled" scenario and not the "hardened by two IPRs" scenario — it is the third, less common posture: an untested patent whose claims are all presumptively valid under § 282, with no PTAB record to mine for admissions, no Board claim construction to lean on, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel working in a defendant's favor.

---

Proceedings

None to report. No proceeding sections follow because fabricating a docket number, panel, or disposition would be worse than an empty list. Concretely, I checked and found nothing for:

• IPR/PGR/CBM petitions captioned against U.S. Pat. No. 10,222,269 (searches on the patent number combined with IPR, PTAB, petition, and petitioner-side terms including Samsung).
• Any proceeding number in the IPR2020–IPR2026 series tied to this patent in PTAB document repositories.
• Any Federal Circuit appeal, docket entry, or CourtListener record referencing this patent.

One caveat on the search itself: numeric strings like "10222269" collide with unrelated identifiers (a UK Companies House registration, an SEC EDGAR accession number, a European article number). Every substantive hit on that string resolved to one of those, not to a PTAB filing. I did not find a single proceeding.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims UNTESTED. Because no AIA trial ever reached a Final Written Decision on this patent, there is no canceled claim, no sustained claim, and no narrowed claim set. Every issued claim stands with the statutory presumption of validity intact, and any defendant must deal with the full claim set as granted. For reference, the patent's relevant milestones are: Korean priority 2015-04-09 (KR 10-2015-0050474), U.S. filing 2016-03-24, grant 2019-03-05, and an adjusted expiration of 2036-12-15 — so it is a long-dated asset with a substantial remaining term. The claimed subject matter is narrow and concrete: temperature-compensated grip/proximity sensing, implemented as (a) setting a sensing state reference level of the sensor based on measured temperature (FIGS. 11-14), or (b) correcting a sensing level applied to the sensor based on measured temperature, e.g. via a variable capacitor, against a fixed reference level (FIGS. 15-17).

Estoppel landscape: blank slate, which cuts against the defendant. § 315(e)(2) estoppel only arises after a final written decision, and there has been none — so the estoppel ledger is empty. No prior-art ground has been "raised or reasonably could have been raised" by anyone. That means a defendant is not estopped from anything, but it also means the defendant gets none of the offensive benefits of an estoppel: no IPR petitioner has been forced to narrow its invalidity case, and no district-court defendant has been able to say "the Board already rejected the patent owner's claim construction." Practically, the entire invalidity case is yours to build from scratch — and without a prior institution decision, you also lose the useful data point of what arguments the Board found persuasive.

Pattern signals: none applicable. There is no repeat petitioner, no joinder chain, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) with this patent in its portfolio, and no PTAB appeal history for the patent owner to point to. One structural point worth flagging: the current assignee is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — an operating company, not a monetization entity. The "troll with a demand letter" framing in the task prompt does not fit this patent. Samsung has been an extremely active petitioner at the PTAB (see, e.g., its numerous IPR campaigns against assertion entities), but that is a different posture entirely from being a PTAB respondent. A party facing this patent is most plausibly facing it as a competitor-side or cross-license dispute, not an NPE campaign.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Treat the absence of IPRs as a signal and interrogate it. Well-asserted, commercially significant patents usually attract IPRs. Zero proceedings is consistent with at least three explanations, and you should determine which applies: (a) the patent has never been asserted in litigation; (b) it has been asserted but only in fora or against parties for whom an IPR was unattractive (e.g., quick settlement, small exposure); or (c) the patent's narrow claim scope made a strong § 102/§ 103 challenge hard to assemble. Explanation (c) is the one that should concern a defendant.

2. Because there is no FWD to link to, front-load the primary-art search yourself. The temperature-compensation concept — threshold-tracking as a function of measured ambient temperature for a capacitive proximity/grip sensor — is a well-populated art area. Prior art of record in this family's prosecution (as reflected in the patent's own "DISCUSSION OF RELATED ART," which cites temperature-dependent sensor malfunction but no specific references) should be supplemented. Note that interference art under pre-AIA § 102(g) is not relevant here given the 2015/2016 priority.

3. Consider whether an IPR is worth filing, and be aware of the timing constraints. If you file, the petition is due within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)). If institution is granted, the Board's statutory deadline is one year from institution (§ 316(a)(11)), extendable up to six months for good cause (§ 316(a)(11)) — so a defendant evaluating a stay motion should map the FWD date against the district-court trial date. Be aware that the current discretionary-denial environment is hostile: the USPTO's Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management (March 2025) and a string of Director-level § 314(a) denials, upheld by the Federal Circuit's refusal to grant mandamus relief in In re Motorola Solutions, In re Google, and In re SAP America (2025-11-06), mean a petition that duplicates parallel district-court invalidity work faces a real risk of denial. A Sotera-style stipulation is no longer a safe harbor.

4. If you are on the patent-owner side, the practical takeaway is the mirror image: the claims are unencumbered by adverse PTAB rulings, but they are also unvetted by the Board, meaning the first IPR petition filed will be decided on a clean record with no institutional memory. Any assertion strategy should assume the validity of these claims will be tested at the Board sooner rather than later.

---

Verification note. I did not confirm the absence of a pending, unindexed petition filed within the last few weeks, and I did not independently query PTAB E2E or the ODP API — I relied on the structured block provided plus public web search. Before relying on this for a filing deadline or an estoppel analysis, confirm directly at PTAB E2E / Patent Center and via USPTO PatentCenter for the application number 15/079,737.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership chain for US 10222269.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 10,222,269 B2

Patent: US 10,222,269 B2 — "Method and apparatus for operating sensor of electronic device"
App. No.: 15/079,737 · Filed: 2016-03-24 · Granted: 2019-03-05
Priority: KR 10-2015-0050474, filed 2015-04-09
Status: Active; adjusted expiration 2036-12-15

⚠️ Sourcing note up front. The USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) is a JavaScript application that is not directly retrievable by the research tools available for this task, and the legacy index (assignment.uspto.gov) and the legacy PDF store (legacy-assignments.uspto.gov) were not reachable with a patent-number query for this patent. Everything below is drawn from the authoritative patent text supplied in this matter, the Google Patents Legal Events record for US 10,222,269, and Espacenet bibliographic data. Where a reel/frame is not confirmed by a retrieved source, I have said so rather than inventing one. All reel/frame fields must be verified by pulling the patent number in Assignment Center before relying on them.

Inventors

All three inventors are listed with KR residence, and the priority application (KR 10-2015-0050474) was filed by Samsung Electronics. This is the ordinary Samsung in-house inventor profile: employee inventors assigning to their employer as a condition of employment.

Unusual-pattern check: No evidence of mass inventor departure within 12 months of filing. Because the patent is indexed (via Patent Leaderboard) under a Samsung portfolio for each named inventor, subsequent filings for these inventors appear to continue under the same employer — the opposite of the pre-fire-sale departure pattern. I could not retrieve employment-history data (e.g., LinkedIn, SEC disclosures) that would independently confirm departure or non-departure, so treat this as no adverse indicator found, not as an affirmative clearance.

Original assignee

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 129 Samsung-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do 16677, Republic of Korea — the entity named on the issued patent and the sole assignee in every record located.

• Primary line of business: Consumer electronics and semiconductor manufacturing; the world's largest smartphone vendor.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims: Yes, on the face of the specification and the field. The claims are directed to setting a sensing-state reference level of a grip sensor based on measured device temperature and comparing the sensor output against that reference to detect contact vs. hovering. The specification expressly frames this around Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) reduction during radio transmission (GSM/GPRS/EDGE) — i.e., the phone backing off transmit power when the grip sensor detects a hand. That is a mainstream feature of Galaxy-series handsets and has been for the relevant period. (I am not citing a specific verified product teardown here; the linkage is to the stated purpose of the claimed subject matter, not to a litigated claim chart.)
• Current status: Operating. Samsung Electronics is a going concern; no bankruptcy or dissolution event in the chain.

Assignment timeline

Based only on records I could retrieve, there is exactly one ownership event in this patent's history — the original inventor assignment. There are no post-issuance assignments of record in any source located.

• [execution date not captured] / recorded 2016-03-24 — Reel/Frame not confirmed by retrieved sources
  • Conveyance: Assignment (new assignment; "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: KWAK, Myung-Hoon; PARK, Mi-Ra; YUN, Yong-Sang (individually, as joint inventors)
  • Assignee: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not captured in retrieved sources — the Google Patents legal-events extract did not expose the recording correspondent, and the underlying cover-sheet PDF was not retrievable by patent number. Cannot assess recurrence. (For context only, and not a finding on this patent: Samsung assignments of this vintage were routinely recorded through outside US firms such as Munck Wilson Mandala in Dallas, TX and others — I am deliberately not attributing a correspondent to this record without the cover sheet.)
  • Context: Standard employment assignment — inventors conveying their invention to their employer at filing. Not a reorg, not a sale.

If Assignment Center returns additional records (e.g., a Samsung intra-group transfer or a later conveyance) that I could not retrieve, this section is incomplete and must be corrected. As of the sources available, the chain has a single link.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10222269
    2015 : KR priority application filed by Samsung
    2016 : US application filed by Samsung
         : Inventors assign rights to Samsung Electronics
    2019 : Patent granted to Samsung Electronics

No subsequent events to plot. If Assignment Center surfaces a later recorded transfer, append a new year row with a leading colon.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The sole recorded assignee is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a named operating company with a real place of business at 129 Samsung-ro, Suwon-si. No "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" successor of record; no registered-agent-service address; no single-purpose LLC in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the original nor the current assignee matches Acacia, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Converso/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg-linked entity. No assignee in the chain appears on a Unified Patents or RPX high-frequency-plaintiff list in the sources reviewed.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not assessable. The chain has one link, and the recording correspondent for that single link was not exposed by the retrievable sources. A single appearance would not be a finding in any event; recurrence is the signal, and there is nothing to recur across.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. No chained LLC transfers; no assignments at all beyond the original inventor conveyance.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming US 10,222,269 was located in the searches performed, and there is no assignment dated within six months of any such suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Samsung Electronics has not filed Chapter 7/11; no patent-sale proceeding is associated with this patent.

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to a third-party assertion vehicle; no SEC or press coverage of a Samsung-to-NPE transfer of this patent.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at the original operating-company assignee.

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment is of record).

Justification: The only ownership event located is the inventors' employment assignment to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. recorded 2016-03-24 (reel/frame not verified), and Samsung remains the sole assignee of record with the patent shown as active. There is no post-issuance conveyance, no chained LLC, no known asserter, and no litigation — so none of the eight NPE signals is affirmatively present, and the "insufficient data" category fits because the record is limited to the original assignment rather than because the signals were affirmatively rebutted. If you can supply the Assignment Center cover sheet, I can confirm the reel/frame and the correspondent of record and upgrade or downgrade this verdict accordingly.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10222269); legacy interface at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Google Patents legal events for this patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10222269B2](/patent/US10222269B2)/en.

I'll research US Patent 10,222,269's cited prior art references. Let me search authoritative sources.

Let me search for the specific cited references and the patent's citation list.

Let me get the full citation list from Google Patents and other databases.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,222,269 B2

Scoping note and search limitation (please read first)

I was able to retrieve the Google Patents / Espacenet bibliographic records for U.S. 10,222,269 B2 ("Method and apparatus for operating sensor of electronic device," Samsung Electronics, app. 15/079,737, filed 2016-03-24, priority KR 10-2015-0050474 filed 2015-04-09, granted 2019-03-05), and I recovered a partial listing of the patent's own cited references (the front-page "(56) References Cited" / Google Patents "Patent Citations" table). My research reached its step limit before I could pull the complete certified citation list from the USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR "References Cited" field or the granted-PDF front page.

I therefore report only the references I actually observed and explicitly flag the list as incomplete. I will not invent additional cited references, and per the operating rules I have not auto-corrected any patent or publication number — all identifiers below are reproduced exactly as they appeared.

References I directly observed in the citation table for US 10,222,269 B2

The table I recovered showed entries with the format [Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title], including both backward citations ("Patent Citations") and forward citations ("Cited By"). Splitting them:

*Backward citations (potential prior art) — the "(en) " entries:

Forward citations (documents citing the instant patent — NOT prior art):

• US 2016/0299010 A1 — the instant patent's own pre-grant publication (2016-10-13)
• US 11,815,879 B2 — "Electronic device for heating control…" (2023)
• US 12,445,973 B2 — "Electronic device for adjusting parameter for driving of grip sensor…" (2025)
• JP 2019062269 A — "Method for manufacturing proximity sensor…" (which cites US 2016/0299010 A1)

Caveat: The Google Patents "Citation" tables render backward and forward entries adjacent to one another, so my three-item backward list above should be treated as provisional pending a full PAIR/PDF verification. I could not confirm that only these three are the complete set of examiner-cited references.

---

§ 102 analysis of each observed reference

1. US 2007/0027580 A1 — "Thermal control of an electronic device for adapting to ambient conditions" (pub. 2007-02-01)

• Citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0027580 A1; publication date 2007-02-01 (inventor Ligtenberg, Chris A.).
• Timing: Published ~8 years before the 2015-04-09 priority date. Qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/pre-AIA § 102(b).
• Description (from title/field): Directed to thermal management of an electronic device that adapts device behavior to ambient conditions — i.e., measuring/estimating temperature and altering device operation accordingly.
• § 102 anticipation assessment — weak: This reference describes temperature-responsive device control generally. For § 102 it would have to disclose, in a single reference and with all claim elements arranged as claimed, the specific combination of (a) measuring a portion temperature, (b) setting a capacitive grip/proximity "sensing state reference level" as a function of that temperature, and (c) determining a contact/hover state by comparing a sensor output against that reference level. On the face of its title/abstract it does not do this — it is a thermal/processing-control reference, not a capacitive-proximity-threshold reference. It is more plausibly useful as § 103 background art (motivation to temperature-compensate device parameters) than as a § 102 anticipatory reference. It does not anticipate claims 1 or 12.

2. KR 20070073680 A — "How to reduce power consumption on your phone" (LG Electronics; pub. 2007-07-10)

• Citation: Korean Patent Application Publication 10-2007-0073680 A (as "KR 20070073680 A"); publication date 2007-07-10; assignee LG Electronics.
• Timing: Published ~8 years before priority. Prior art under § 102(a)(1)/pre-AIA § 102(b) (assuming an accessible printed publication).
• Description: Power-consumption reduction for a mobile phone.
• § 102 anticipation assessment — not anticipating: The subject matter (power management) is remote from the claimed capacitive-sensor temperature-compensation. There is no disclosure apparent of setting a grip-sensor reference level based on measured temperature. Does not anticipate any claim. It could only be tangentially relevant under § 103 as general mobile-power context, and only if another reference supplied the sensor-threshold teaching.

3. KR 20150019352 A — "Method and apparatus for grip recognition in electronic device" (Samsung Electronics; pub. 2015-02-25)

• Citation: Korean Patent Application Publication 10-2015-0019352 A (as "KR 20150019352 A"); publication date 2015-02-25; assignee Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Timing: Published ~6 weeks before the instant patent's 2015-04-09 KR priority date — critically close. It is prior art only if it published before the effective filing date; 2015-02-25 predates 2015-04-09, so it qualifies as § 102(a)(1)/pre-AIA § 102(b) art.
• Description: Method and apparatus for grip recognition in an electronic device — i.e., the same functional domain as the instant patent (capacitive grip sensing via a conductive/antenna pattern).
• § 102 anticipation assessment — the most relevant of the three, but likely NOT anticipatory on the claims as written: This reference appears to disclose grip recognition using a grip sensor, which reads on portions of the apparatus claims (e.g., claim 15's "first sensor for sensing a capacitive component" and the general grip-detection environment). However, the instant patent's novelty resides specifically in temperature-dependent adjustment: (i) setting the sensing-state reference level according to measured temperature (claim 1) or (ii) correcting the applied sensing level according to measured temperature while holding the reference level constant (claim 12). Unless KR 10-2015-0019352 discloses temperature-based compensation of the grip-recognition threshold/level, it does not anticipate claim 1 or claim 12. It is best characterized as § 103 base art that could be combined with a temperature-sensing/compensation teaching (e.g., reference #1, or the applicant's own admitted art) to attack the claims for obviousness — not as a § 102 reference for the independent claims.

---

Bottom line

• No observed cited reference anticipates the independent claims. The three backward references I could verify either address a different problem (thermal control, power management) or the same problem without the temperature-compensation element (grip recognition). § 102 anticipation is not supportable on the evidence gathered.
• Strongest § 103 nexus: KR 2015-0019352 A (grip recognition) combined with a temperature-adaptive-device reference such as US 2007/0027580 A1 or the applicant's own admitted temperature-drift problem (spec ¶ discussing ~0.25 pF drift from −20 °C to 60 °C).
• Verification gap (material): I recovered only three backward citations. The front-page "(56)" list of a Samsung-granted patent typically contains more U.S. and foreign documents, and the examiner may have cited art not shown in the Google Patents table. To produce a complete, defensible prior-art map I need the certified "(56) References Cited" list from the granted PDF front page or USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR for application 15/079,737. I was unable to complete that retrieval within my tool budget and am flagging it rather than guessing.

Consistency check with the prior litigation section

The earlier litigation section correctly warned against conflating number-look-alikes (e.g., U.S. 10,269,222 in a wearable-device IPR; corporate/registration numbers "10222269"). None of the references above is a litigation record, and none changes that "no litigation found" conclusion. One cross-reference worth noting: the instant patent's own pre-grant publication US 2016/0299010 A1 appears as a cited document in JP 2019062269 A — a forward citation confirming the family, not prior art against 10,222,269.

Recommended next steps to close the gap

1. Pull the granted-PDF front page for US 10,222,269 B2 (patentimages/Google Patents PDF) to read the full "(56) References Cited" list.
2. Cross-check USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier for application 15/079,737 to capture examiner citations and any IDS references.
3. Retrieve the full text of KR 10-2015-0019352 A and US 2007/0027580 A1 to confirm whether either expressly temperature-compensates a grip/proximity threshold (which would materially change the § 102/§ 103 assessment of claims 1 and 12).

If you can supply or grant access to the granted-PDF front page or the PAIR prosecution history, I can complete the per-reference anticipation analysis against each of the issued claims (1–15).

I'll research the prior-art references cited on the patent's Google Patents page before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me try to retrieve the specific prior-art references cited in US 10,222,269's prosecution and on its face.

I found the patent's own "References Cited" list. Let me pull details on the key cited references to ground the § 103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,222,269 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Sourcing status and caveats (read first)

Two limitations in the material available to me materially affect confidence, and I am flagging them rather than papering over them:

1. Literal claim language was not available. The full-text fetch was truncated before the claims. The claim elements analyzed below are the four independent-claim reconstructions from the earlier Patent summary section (derived from the patent's Summary of the Invention). If the issued claims recite narrower structure (e.g., a specific "grip sensor," an antenna-shared conductive pattern as a positive claim element, or a variable capacitor), the grounds shift from "obvious over Reference A alone/al­most" toward "obvious over Reference A in view of Reference B." The analysis is written to survive that shift, but the reader should verify against the literal claims.

2. The "Prior Art section of this page" was only partially retrievable. I recovered the patent's own "References Cited" list from the granted-PDF front page (reproduced in §3), but I could not retrieve the Google Patents "Cited By" list, the "Similar Documents" list, or the non-patent-literature citations. Where I rely on references not on that face-of-patent list, I say so explicitly and label the dates as approximate.

Everything in §3 (Group A) is grounded in text I actually retrieved. Everything in §4 (Group B) is grounded in retrieved document content, but I am less certain of the exact filing/priority dates and mark them for verification.

---

1. The claims to be analyzed (reconstructed)

Dependent subject matter (from the spec, not verified claim-by-claim): multi-threshold reference (no-proximity / contact / ≥1 hover state); per-temperature-section preset values; linearly sloped reference across a section; unequal temperature-section intervals; temperature sensor placed apart from heating/insulating parts; use of external or battery-gauge temperature; variable-capacitor implementation of the sensing-level correction.

---

2. Governing standard

• 35 U.S.C. § 103, AIA version (the application was filed 2016-03-24 with a KR priority of 2015-04-09, so the critical date for § 102(a)(1) art is the 2015-04-09 priority date; § 102(a)(2) art must have been filed before that date).
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): a combination is obvious where the improvement was within the ordinary creativity of a skilled artisan, where a known technique is applied to a similar device in the same way, or where the combination was "obvious to try" from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
• In re Icon Health & Fitness: "simple substitution of one known element for another" yielding predictable results supports obviousness.
• The patent's own admitted prior art is material: the Background states that a "proximity sensor may malfunction depending on environmental temperature, and may occasionally cause erroneous signal outputs," and the specification states the "sensing state reference level may be previously set through testing during the manufacturing process." These are admissions that (i) the problem was known and (ii) the pre-existing solution was manual calibration, which strengthens the case for automating compensation via a temperature input.

---

3. Prior art retrieved — Group A: references on the face of US 10,222,269

The granted PDF front page lists, under "(56) References Cited — U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS":

Analytical significance of this list. The examiner's cited art clusters around two themes: (i) generic thermal management / temperature-dependent control (Hirayama G05B, Ligtenberg G05D 23/19, Jain G06F 1/206, Kim F24D) and (ii) portable-device sensor/UI art. That mix is important: it means the patent was allowed over art that either compensated temperature in a non-capacitive context or compensated capacitance without the grip/hover multi-state framing. A challenger's task is therefore to supply the missing link — a second reference putting a temperature input into a capacitive proximity/grip decision — which is exactly what Group B supplies.

I did not recover the "Cited By" list, so I cannot exclude that the examiner also considered the highly on-point references discussed below under § 102; the certificate of correction / file wrapper would settle that.

---

4. Prior art retrieved — Group B: content-verified references (dates flagged for verification)

B1 — US 8,169,413 B2 (granted US patent; content retrieved verbatim). Discloses a portable terminal with a touch input device that:

• determines temperature using a temperature sensor (thermistor) installed near the touch input device "in order to more accurately measure the external temperature";
• computes a temperature difference between the current and previous measurement;
• if the difference ≥ a rising reference, "compensates the recognition threshold value by adding a predefined compensation value (α)"; if ≤ a falling reference, decreases the recognition threshold by α;
• recognizes touch by comparing the measured capacitance to the (now compensated) recognition threshold;
• states the purpose is "to prevent the touch input device from malfunctioning due to an abrupt temperature change."

This reference teaches, in substance, elements (a), (b) and (c) of C1 — the only differences being the sensor type (touch panel vs. grip/hover sensor) and the trigger for compensation (temperature difference vs. absolute temperature section). Caveat: I verified the content but not the issue date; as a B2 patent in the 8,169,xxx series it predates the 2015 priority date, but confirm.

B2 — EP 3 016 285 A1 / US 2017/0147145 A1 ("Method and device for improved accuracy of proximity and touch detection in mobile devices"). Discloses a capacitive proximity sensor in a mobile device that:

• measures a temperature with reference temperature sensor 110;
• determines an adjustment by "multiplying the change in capacitance of temperature sensor 110 and the value of TEMPCOEF register 126";
• subtracts the product from the reading of Cuser "to determine a temperature drift free value of Cuser";
• then compares the temperature-adjusted PROXUSEFUL value to a fixed PROXTHRESH to decide proximity;
• expressly notes that ICs, connectors and antennas contribute temperature-susceptible capacitance.
• It also uses a capacitor bank in offset compensation with a PROXOFFSET register iteratively adjusted to cancel environmental capacitance.

This reference teaches, in substance, elements (a), (b) and (c) of C2 — temperature-based correction of the sensing value compared against a fixed threshold — plus a switched-capacitor implementation relevant to the dependent variable-capacitor feature. Caveat: EP 3 016 285 A1's § 102 status turns on its claimed priority (appears to be a late-2014 US provisional); verify before relying on it as § 102 art.

B3 — US 9,829,393 B2 (smartphone ambient-temperature estimation). Discloses modeling/estimating ambient temperature from multiple internal temperature sensors and dynamically adjusting parameters, expressly distinguishing sensor self-heating, PCB heating, and whole-device heating.

Supports the dependent features directed to placing the temperature sensor away from heating parts and to using ambient/external temperature rather than an internal hot spot.

Note — not prior art (do not cite as § 103 art): The "Grip sensing method and apparatus" family (US 10,884,152 / US 2020/0363553 A1) discloses temperature compensation of a grip baseline using a prestored look-up table and temperature coefficients — squarely on point technically, but its priority post-dates 2015 and therefore it is follow-on art, not prior art. Its existence is nonetheless relevant context: it shows the industry's ordinary trajectory was exactly the temperature-compensation approach the '269 patent describes.

---

5. Ground 1 — Claims 1 and 3 (adaptive-threshold claims) are obvious

Proposed combination: B1 (US 8,169,413 B2) as the primary reference, in view of a capacitive grip/hover-sensing portable device reference (a secondary reference from Group A — e.g., US 2012/0050180 A1 (King), US 2013/0193985 A1 (Tillotson), US 2009/0260898 A1 (Jin), or US 2014/0362889 A1 (Jang) — pending content verification).

Element mapping for C1:

B1 thus discloses every step of C1 except the identity of the sensor (touch panel vs. grip/hover sensor). The secondary reference supplies a capacitive grip sensor whose output level is compared against contact and hover thresholds (the specification itself treats these as well-known: ≈22 pF no-contact, ≈22.3 pF hover, ≈26 pF contact, with "Grip ON criterion" preset at manufacture).

For C3, B1 supplies the "second sensor" (temperature) and the controller function; the secondary grip reference supplies the "conductive pattern" and "first sensor for sensing a capacitive component of the conductive pattern"; the antenna-shared conductive pattern is conventional in the art and is expressly described in the patent as a known option (FIGS. 5A–8B).

Motivation to combine (why a POSITA would):

1. Same field, same problem, same solution type. Both references address capacitive sensing in battery-powered portable terminals, and both identify temperature-induced drift causing erroneous detection as the defect. B1's stated objective — "prevent the touch input device from malfunctioning due to an abrupt temperature change" — is identical to the '269 patent's stated objective.
2. Art recognized the problem as field-wide. Even the applicant's own Background concedes proximity/grip sensors "may malfunction depending on environmental temperature." Combining a known remedy from an adjacent capacitive-sensing device is the paradigm KSR case ("if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious").
3. Predictable result. Moving a comparison threshold as a function of a measured temperature is a mechanical, predictable adjustment; no new or unexpected result arises.
4. The prior solution was manual. The specification admits the threshold was "previously set through testing during the manufacturing process." Replacing a one-time factory calibration with a runtime, temperature-indexed calibration is an obvious automation of a known expedient.
5. Nothing teaches away. No reference in the record teaches that a grip or hover decision should be insulated from temperature compensation; the Semtech-family art (B2) and the later grip-sensing family both go the same direction.

Specific sub-features (dependent claims):

• Multi-state reference (no-proximity / contact / hover): combining a low threshold and a high threshold to distinguish preselection from selection is standard capacitive-UI practice (state machines with "Low Threshold" and "High Threshold" transitions are described in the Jahier-type art surfaced in the PTAB materials; a hover-vs-contact two-threshold scheme is inherent in proximity sensing generally). Applying B1's compensated threshold independently to each of two thresholds is a mere duplication of parts with no new result.
• Per-temperature-section preset values (10 °C sections over −20 to 50 °C): routine data-structure optimization; look-up tables indexed by temperature range are ubiquitous in the temperature-compensation art.
• Linear slope across a section: In re-line authority treating linear interpolation between known data points as an obvious mathematical implementation of a known relationship, particularly where the underlying capacitance-temperature relationship is shown to be approximately linear (the patent itself notes "the linear relationship between electrical components and effect on capacitance" is exploited by the prior compensation approach).
• Unequal section intervals (finer where the value changes faster): optimizing resolution where the derivative is largest is an obvious engineering trade-off, not a patentable insight.

Conclusion: C1 and C3 are obvious over B1 in view of a capacitive grip/proximity-sensing reference; the multi-threshold and per-section dependent claims are obvious over the same combination further in view of routine optimization.

---

6. Ground 2 — Claims 2 and 4 (adaptive-sensing-level claims) are obvious

Proposed combination: B2 (EP 3 016 285 A1 / US 2017/0147145 A1) as the primary reference, in view of the same capacitive grip/hover-sensing device reference, and optionally B3 (US 9,829,393 B2) for the temperature-sourcing features.

Element mapping for C2:

B2 is a near-perfect disclosure of C2's mechanism: the threshold stays constant and the signal is shifted. The remaining gap is again the sensor identity (proximity sensor in a phone vs. grip sensor sharing a conductive/antenna pattern) and the express "preset" character of the threshold, both of which the grip-sensing reference and the patent's own description supply as conventional.

Motivation to combine:

1. Equivalent and recognized alternative. Threshold-tracking and signal-compensation are the two canonical ways to defeat sensor drift. Where a reference teaches one, and the other is a known alternative with the same effect, selection between them is a "simple substitution of one known element for another" (In re Icon Health & Fitness) producing a predictable result — precisely the KSR "obvious to try" scenario with a finite, identified set of solutions.
2. B2 expressly addresses antenna-coupled capacitance drift. Because the '269 patent's conductive pattern is optionally shared with an antenna pattern (FIGS. 5A–8B), B2's explicit treatment of "ICs, connectors, antennas, and other components" as temperature-susceptible sources of drift supplies an affirmative reason to apply the technique in exactly this architecture.
3. The variable-capacitor implementation is disclosed. B2's iterative capacitor-bank offset compensation, together with the capacitor-bank/PROXOFFSET register, renders dependent C4's "variable capacitor including a plurality of capacitors having different capacitances and a switch selectively connecting the plurality of capacitors" obvious as an application of a known switched-capacitor technique. Switched-capacitor banks for offset/gain trim were standard well before 2015.
4. Shared hardware motivation. Both references are implemented in the same class of device (a cellular handset), so a POSITA would have had both in view and a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success. The '269 patent's own use cases — SAR reduction on grip detection — are themselves a known reason to increase grip-sensor detection reliability, supplying an independent motivation to adopt drift compensation.

Conclusion: C2 and C4 are obvious over B2 in view of a capacitive grip/proximity-sensing reference; the variable-capacitor dependent claim is obvious over B2's own capacitor-bank teaching.

---

7. Where a validity defense could plausibly bite (and why it likely fails)

Realistic invalidity risk assessment: High for C1/C3 (B1-type primary reference) and for C2/C4 (B2-type primary reference), assuming the reconstructed claim scope is accurate and B2's priority date pre-dates 2015-04-09. Moderate if the issued claims add structural limitations not present in the Summary (e.g., requiring the reference level itself to be selected from a per-section look-up table with a linearly interpolated slope and requiring the hover threshold to be the lowest of ≥3 thresholds) — in that case a challenger needs a third reference for the look-up-table/interpolation feature, and the combination becomes more contestable.

---

8. Bottom line

• C1 (method, adaptive threshold) and C3 (device, adaptive threshold): obvious under § 103 over US 8,169,413 B2 (temperature-compensated recognition threshold in a portable terminal) in view of a capacitive grip/proximity-sensor reference. Motivation: same field, same known problem (temperature-induced erroneous detection), same class of solution (temperature-dependent threshold adjustment), predictable result, and the applicant's own admitted fallback of factory-time calibration.
• C2 (method, adaptive sensing level) and C4 (device, adaptive sensing level): obvious over EP 3 016 285 A1 / US 2017/0147145 A1 (temperature-coefficient correction of the measured capacitance compared to a fixed threshold, with antenna drift expressly recognized and a switched capacitor bank for offset compensation), in view of the grip-sensor reference. The variable-capacitor dependent feature is additionally suggested by EP 3 016 285's own capacitor bank.
• Dependent features (multi-threshold states, per-section presets, linear slopes, unequal intervals, sensor placement away from heat sources, external/battery temperature, variable capacitor) are each supported by routine-optimization reasoning or by direct disclosure in Group B, particularly US 9,829,393 B2 for ambient-temperature estimation and sensor placement.

Confidence and verification needed:

• High confidence in the legal framework and in the element mappings to B1 (US 8,169,413 B2) and B2 (EP 3 016 285 A1 / US 2017/0147145 A1), whose content I retrieved directly.
• Moderate confidence in the § 102 dates for B1, B2 and B3 — I retrieved content, not certified front pages. Confirm B1's issue date (8,169,xxx series ≈ 2012) and B2's earliest priority (appears to be a late-2014 US provisional).
• Unverified / could change the analysis: the literal issued claims (claim count, independent-claim numbering, and whether "grip sensor" / antenna-sharing / variable capacitor are positively recited in independent claims rather than only in dependents), and the "Cited By" and non-patent-literature portions of the Google Patents prior-art section, which I could not retrieve. If any of the on-face Group A references (e.g., US 2012/0050180 A1 King; US 2013/0193985 A1 Tillotson; US 2014/0163765 A1 Jain) turns out to disclose temperature-based threshold adjustment in a capacitive sensing context, the case strengthens to near-anticipation territory for C1/C3 — those three are the highest-value references to pull in full next.