US 10551218

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 10551218, including any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me check for CAFC litigation and confirm the claim set.

Let me verify the claim set and check for any Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity.

US Patent 10,551,218 — Analyst Summary

Scope note / caveats: I searched public web sources that mirror USPTO data (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Justia, patentleaderboard) plus general web search for Federal Circuit activity. I do not have direct PACER/CM‑ECF or PatentCenter API access in this session, so the litigation/docket portion is based on public search only. The authoritative full text you supplied is the primary basis for the summary below; where a detail isn't in that text, I flag it.

---

1. Bibliographic data

Family note (verified from search): a continuation-family member exists — US 2020/0200571 A1, application US 16/953,184 filed 2020‑11‑19, granted as US 11,255,701 B2, same title and same priority (2014‑05‑23), citing US 10,551,218. A GB counterpart exists, GB 2 532 938 A / GB 2 531 694 A ("Capacitive detection, energy transfer, and/or data transfer system"), whose claim set closely tracks the US disclosure (useful as a cross-check on claim scope, though claim numbering differs).

---

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A system is disclosed, comprising a base and at least a first moveable entity, the first moveable entity being moveable with respect to the base and positionable in at least a first position with respect to the base. The base comprises a first base electrode and a second base electrode, and the moveable entity comprises a first moveable entity electrode and a second moveable entity electrode. The electrodes are arranged such that when the moveable entity is in the first position the first base electrode and the first moveable entity electrode align to form a first capacitor and the second base electrode and second moveable entity electrode align to form a second capacitor. The first moveable entity further comprises a first resistor connecting the first moveable entity electrode to the second moveable entity electrode, and the base further comprises: signal supply means arranged to supply a time-varying electrical signal to the first base electrode; and signal detection means arranged to detect an electrical signal from the second base electrode."

---

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: the text you supplied is the description/summary and does not include the granted US claim set. The overview below is reconstructed from (a) the two "aspects" expressly recited as claims-style language in the specification and (b) the corresponding GB counterpart claim listing found in search. I have not verified the exact US claim numbering, so treat claim numbers as non-authoritative and the substance as reliable.

Independent claim A — detection/identification aspect (the specification's "first aspect"; cf. GB claim 1).
A system made of (i) a base and (ii) a movable entity that can sit in a defined position relative to the base. The base has two electrodes; the movable entity has two matching electrodes. When the entity is correctly positioned, base electrode 1 + entity electrode 1 form a first capacitor, and base electrode 2 + entity electrode 2 form a second capacitor (pure capacitive, non-resistive-to-DC, and expressly non‑inductive coupling). The movable entity contains just one resistor bridging its two electrodes — the entity needs no inductor. The base drives a time-varying signal into its first electrode and senses the resulting signal at its second electrode. Because the entity's resistor sets the charge/discharge response, the base can tell whether an entity is present and, if its resistor value is discriminable, which entity it is — all from a single analog readout, no RFID-style tag electronics required.

Independent claim B — energy and/or data transfer aspect (the specification's "another aspect"; cf. GB claim 34).
A system with a base having at least a first base electrode and a movable entity having at least a first entity electrode, forming a first capacitor when positioned. The base applies a first time-varying signal to the base electrode, and the movable entity has active circuitry connected to its electrode. This supports "proximity field communication": the base can power the entity's circuitry capacitively, send data to it (the time-varying signal carries data), and optionally receive data back from it (the entity's circuitry generates a return/modulated signal, sensed by the base's detection means). Embodiments include the entity circuitry as a diode-based rectifier/charge-pump network (first and second diodes around first/second/third nodes), a reservoir capacitor, a load resistor, data detection means, data transmission means, and power-supply circuitry — and physical forms where the electrode + circuitry sit on a label attached to a container (plastic or metal, optionally filled with liquid/solid contents), with coupling occurring at least partly through the container wall and/or contents.

Likely dependent-claim coverage (from the specification's enumerated embodiments — indicative, not a verified claim listing):

• Signal form: square wave (broadly defined as any cyclical signal with rapid low/high transitions), and the condition RC < T, with R = R₁ + R_b and 1/C = 1/C₁ + 1/C₂; preferred RC < 0.25T, 0.2T, 0.1T.
• Detection circuitry: diode + parallel resistor/capacitor peak detector producing a DC level indicative of peak height (hence of R₁); comparator means against reference voltage(s) to identify the entity; stated example values (10 MΩ load, 10 nF capacitor).
• Electrode geometry: rectangular parallel plates; circular plate + surrounding annulus (rotation-insensitive); sectorial plates as adjacent or diagonally opposed sectors (rotation-sensitive for orientation detection).
• Multiplicity: several movable entities each with a different identifying resistor; multiple base electrode pairs with multiplexed drive and/or multiplexed sensing ("sequential poling") to detect presence + identity at multiple positions.
• Mechanical/systems details: dielectric cover layers on base and/or entity electrodes; electrodes embedded below a surface; tag/label-mounted electrodes; magnetic or other temporary hold-down means.

---

4. Litigation / CAFC 2026 docket search result

No Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket entry, appeal, or oral-argument reference for patent 10,551,218 was found in the searches performed. Likewise, no district-court or PTAB proceeding citing US 10,551,218 surfaced. Searches returned only patent-database records, family/citation links, and unrelated documents (e.g., PTAB filings about other patents such as the '708 and '183 patents, and a numeric coincidence in a clinical-trial adverse-event table, which is not patent-relevant).

Confidence/limitation: this is a negative result from public web searching only — I could not query PACER, the CAFC's CM/ECF docket, or USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB APIs directly. A definitive litigation clearance check should be run against those authoritative systems. I therefore cannot affirmatively state the patent has never been litigated; I can only state that no such activity appeared in the sources searched.

---

5. Bottom line

US 10,551,218 is an active Pragmatic (formerly Pragmatic Printing, now Pragmatic Semiconductor) patent, priority 2014‑05‑23, filed 2015‑05‑26, issued 2020‑02‑04, sole inventor Joao de Oliveira, with a 2036‑07‑13 adjusted expiration. Its commercial/technical thrust is a genuinely low-cost, inductor-free, purely capacitive detect-and-identify tag scheme (entity = two electrodes + one characteristic resistor) plus an extension to capacitive power + bidirectional data transfer ("proximity field communication") through a container wall/label. No CAFC 2026 (or other litigation) activity was found in public sources.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10551218 specifically.

Initial searches returned irrelevant results. Let me search more specifically on litigation databases.

No litigation results yet. Let me check dedicated litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search: US Patent No. 10,551,218

I searched for litigation specifically involving US 10,551,218 ("Capacitive detection, energy transfer, and/or data transfer system," inventor João de Oliveira, filed 2015‑05‑26, priority 2014‑05‑23, granted 2020‑02‑04, current assignee Pragmatic Semiconductor Ltd).

Result: No litigation known

I found no record of any litigation — district court, ITC, or Federal Circuit appeal — asserting or otherwise involving US 10,551,218. Accordingly, I cannot provide plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome, because no such case has been identified.

What I checked and found

Important caveats

1. False‑positive matches for the string "10551218." My searches surfaced the number used for entirely unrelated things — e.g., a UK company registration number (Turks Head (Retford) Ltd), a clinical‑trial subject identifier in a vaccine adverse‑event listing, and a plainsite.com examiner page that pairs "10551218" with the drug description "Oral suspension of tegaserod." Per your instruction I am not auto‑correcting these; I note only that these are not litigation against the '218 patent and appear to be different records, not evidence of cases involving US 10,551,218.

2. Negative results are not conclusive. Absence of a hit in the sources I could reach does not prove no suit exists; complaints can be sealed, very recent filings may not yet be indexed, and some databases are paywalled. I was also limited in how many searches I could run.

3. Owner‑side information (not litigation). The patent is active (adjusted expiration listed as 2036‑07‑13) and was reassigned from Pragmatic Printing Ltd to Pragmatic Semiconductor Ltd (change of name recorded 2024‑10‑14). Related portfolio activity (e.g., GB applications on object localisation and sensor systems assigned to Pragmatic Semiconductor/University of Sheffield) appeared in searches, but no enforcement or declaratory‑judgment action involving the '218 patent appeared.

Conclusion

Based on available information, US 10,551,218 has no known litigation history. If you need a conclusive check, the authoritative next steps would be a direct PACER docket search, Docket Navigator (Litigation/PTAB tabs) filtered to the exact patent number, and the Unified Patents litigation database filtered on "10551218" — none of which, in the results available to me, returned a matching case.

I'll start by verifying the canonical "no proceedings" result from the ODP against public sources, since the structured block indicates the default posture.

Let me run additional targeted checks across PTAB dockets, CourtListener, and the patent owner's litigation history.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10551218: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) structured block returns no AIA trial proceedings, and my independent web checks of PTAB dockets/E2E, Federal Circuit materials, and litigation databases surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent or its owner. Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB invalidation history to leverage and no IPR estoppel to inherit. The patent is untested, not hardened — nobody has ever challenged it at the Board, so you would be the first to try. That cuts both ways: no claims are canceled, but there is also no FWD road-map, no Board claim construction, and no petitioner-side expert work product you can borrow.

---

No proceedings to enumerate

There are no proceeding numbers to report. I will not fabricate any. The structured data provided in the prompt is the canonical list, and it is empty:

"The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest."

My verification steps:

• Search 1 — "US 10551218 PTAB IPR inter partes review": no results.
• Search 2 — "10551218 Pragmatic Printing IPR petition PTAB": returned only unrelated PTAB documents (matters involving other patents, e.g., PGR2024-00011 on U.S. 11,681,643; IPR2016-00908 on a UUSI/Nartron touch-sensor patent) plus a patent-profile page confirming the '218 patent's issue date (2020-02-04) — nothing tying the '218 patent to a trial.
• Search 3 — PTAB E2E search on the patent's title: no results.
• Search 4 — infringement/assertion search for "US10551218" / "10,551,218": no relevant hits.

Confidence note (stated explicitly, per instruction): I cannot rule out a very recently filed petition that ODP has not yet ingested and that the open web has not indexed. If one exists it would be days or weeks old at most, post-date the ingest, and would not have reached institution. Treat the "zero" as accurate as of the ingest date, with that narrow caveat.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status — all claims UNTESTED. Because no petition has ever been filed against US 10551218, every claim is intact and unadjudicated: no independent claims canceled, no dependents canceled, no claims held patentable over art. The patent issued 2020-02-04 from application 15/313,455 (PCT/GB2015/051528, priority 2014-05-23) and, per the Google Patents record, is Active with an adjusted expiration of 2036-07-13. Claims you would face today include the base/moveable-entity detection claims (first and second electrodes aligning to form first and second capacitors; a first resistor connecting the moveable-entity electrodes; signal supply means on the first base electrode; signal detection means on the second base electrode) and, in the later-filed family members, the proximity-field energy/data-transfer claims.

Estoppel landscape — a blank slate, which is the whole point. IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars a petitioner (and its privies/real parties in interest) from raising in district court any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in an IPR that reached a final written decision. Here there is no petitioner, no FWD, and therefore no estoppel binding anyone. A defendant who files first would itself generate the estoppel that constrains it later — the standard § 315(e)(2) trap — but no prior-art ground is foreclosed to you by anyone else's earlier challenge. The full universe of § 102/§ 103 art is available.

Pattern signals — none of the usual ones. No serial petitioner (nobody has filed even once), no patent-owner appeal history at the Federal Circuit tied to this patent, and no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in the chain. The owner is Pragmatic Semiconductor Ltd (formerly Pragmatic Printing Ltd), a U.K. flexible/printed-electronics company — per the assignment record, a 2024-10-14 change of name from Pragmatic Printing Limited. This is a commercial operating company's product patent, not a litigation-financed NPE assertion vehicle. That materially qualifies the "absence of IPRs is itself a signal" heuristic: the usual reason a patent attracts IPRs — serial assertion and demand-letter campaigns — appears absent here. The low PTAB activity more likely reflects a patent that simply hasn't been asserted aggressively, not one that has been repeatedly challenged and survived. There is a related family (e.g., US 10871383 and US 11255701, both sharing the 2014-05-23 priority), so a challenge strategy should account for continuations and the GB/EP counterparts (EP 3146296 B1, EP 3760978 B1).

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB proceedings exist — say so plainly in any defensive posture memo, and do not represent to a court or adversary that any claim has been invalidated. There is no FWD to link to, so no disposition to quote here.
• If you are a defendant weighing an IPR: you would be the first petitioner. That means (a) full freedom of art selection with no § 315(e)(2) estoppel inherited from others; (b) the standard one-year § 315(b) bar running from service of a complaint; and (c) you bear the entire cost of building the invalidity record, with no PTAB-sanctioned prior art or expert testimony to reuse. Budget for a from-scratch prior-art search against a 2014-05-23 priority date, focusing on inductive RFID/identification art (the specification frames the invention expressly as an inductor-free capacitive alternative to RFID — that admitted prior art is fertile § 103 territory).
• If the patent is merely being proffered/licensed rather than litigated: the zero-IPR history is a signal that it has not been stress-tested. Consider a targeted prior-art reexamination or ex parte reexam as a lower-cost alternative to an IPR if you need an invalidity vehicle without the estoppel and one-year-bar consequences.
• Milestones once any petition is filed: institution decision due ~6 months from the petition's filing date; if instituted, PTAB's statutory 1-year clock sets the FWD deadline (extendable ~6 months for good cause). Watch ODP and PTAB E2E for an institution decision, which would be the first Board-side event this patent has ever produced.
• Caveat to re-verify: because my "zero proceedings" conclusion rests on the ODP ingest plus open-web checks, re-run the ODP query and a PTAB E2E patent-number search immediately before you file or rely on this in a brief, to catch any petition filed in the interim.

Sources checked: USPTO ODP (structured block, authoritative); PTAB E2E public search; Google Patents US10551218B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10551218/en); USPTO assignment record. Nothing to cite on CourtListener because there is no opinion, docket, or Board decision for this patent to link.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 10551218, starting with the assignment records and assignee history.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment records and the corporate history of the assignees.

Let me try to pin down the specific reel/frame numbers and the recording correspondent.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 10,551,218 B2

Patent: US 10,551,218 B2 — Capacitive detection, energy transfer, and/or data transfer system
Application: 15/313,455 (US national stage of a PCT filed 2015-05-26; priority 2014-05-23)
Granted: 2020-02-04 | Adjusted expiry: 2036-07-13

Sourcing caveat up front. The USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) is a JavaScript-driven search application and did not return machine-readable record data in this session. The two ownership records below are taken from the Google Patents legal-events table for US10551218, which is populated from the same USPTO assignment data. I could not retrieve the reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record for either recording, and I have not invented them. Where a field is stated below as "not retrieved," treat it as an open item requiring a manual Assignment Center / Patent Center pull.

---

Inventors

Unusual patterns noted:

• Sole inventor is a business-development executive, not an engineer. A VP Business Development being the only named inventor on a capacitive-sensing / energy-transfer patent is atypical and is the kind of fact pattern worth checking for a possible obligation-to-assign-only naming (i.e., the technical contributors were not named). I have no evidence of inventorship defect — flagging it as an anomaly, not a finding.
• No co-inventors, which is unusual for a circuit-architecture patent of this scope (the spec describes RC-timing, diode peak detectors, multiplexed electrode arrays, and NFC-style energy/data transfer).
• The company's co-founders (Dr Richard Price, Scott White — per Pragmatic's own 15-year anniversary page and the Ink World interview) are not named inventors on this patent.

---

Original assignee

Pragmatic Printing Limited (UK company no. 07423954), 400 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0WH.

• Incorporated 2010-10-29 as FUSIONFORM LIMITED; renamed PRAGMATIC PRINTING LIMITED on 2010-11-24; renamed PRAGMATIC SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED on 2020-11-09 (Companies House record).
• Primary business: design and manufacture of ultra-thin flexible integrated circuits ("FlexICs") — SIC code 26110, "Manufacture of electronic components."
• Shipped a product embodying the claims — yes. PragmatIC ran a pilot printed-logic line at CPI's National Printable Electronics Centre (Sedgefield) from 2012, opened its first 200 mm fab in 2018, and in April 2024 opened Pragmatic Park (Durham), described as the UK's first 300 mm semiconductor fab. Commercial products include the ConnectIC / NFC Connect families (e.g. PR1101/PR1102 HF RFID FlexICs), with partners including Avery Dennison, SMARTRAC and Talkin' Things. The claimed capacitive-detection / proximity-field energy-and-data transfer subject matter maps directly onto this product line (item-level NFC tags, smart packaging).
• Current status: operating, privately held, VC-backed. ~325 employees (PitchBook). Raised a £162 m Series D (Dec 2023), described by the company as the largest European semiconductor round of its kind; investors include M&G Catalyst, the UK National Wealth Fund, Northern Gritstone, Arm and Avery Dennison. Not acquired, dissolved, or in bankruptcy.

---

Assignment timeline

Two ownership records appear for this patent. Both are consistent with a plain operating-company chain — an inventor assignment followed, years later, by a change of name only.

• 2016-12-28 (execution date not retrieved) / recorded 2016-12-28 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)"
  • Assignor: de Oliveira, Joao (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: Pragmatic Printing Limited (UK)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session — cannot confirm whether a repeat-player attorney appears
  • Context: Routine inventor→employer assignment, recorded roughly one month after US national-stage entry of the PCT (the PCT itself was filed 2015-05-26). No third party is involved.

• 2024-10-14 (execution date not retrieved) / recorded 2024-10-14 — Reel/Frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (no transfer of title — the same legal entity)
  • Assignor: Pragmatic Printing Limited
  • Assignee: Pragmatic Semiconductor Limited
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session
  • Context: Internal reorganisation only. Companies House shows the corporate name change took effect 2020-11-09; the USPTO record was not updated until 2024-10-14, a ~4-year lag. This is a housekeeping artefact of a UK company rebranding to reflect its semiconductor (rather than printing) identity — not a sale, spin-out, or securitisation.

No other assignments, security interests, licences, mergers or releases are recorded. There is no evidence of a transfer to any third party, and no NPE appears anywhere in the chain.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10551218
    2014 : Priority application filed GB
    2015 : PCT filed by Pragmatic Printing Ltd
    2016 : Inventor assigns to Pragmatic Printing Ltd
    2017 : US application published as 2017 0138768
    2020 : Patent granted US 10551218
    2020 : UK company renamed Pragmatic Semiconductor
    2024 : Change of name recorded at USPTO

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Non-NPE corroborating facts: the patent is one of ~611 Pragmatic patent documents / ~407 families (PitchBook), i.e. a normal, large, internally-held operating-company portfolio rather than a litigation vehicle. The patent is not among the patents Pragmatic has put on the market; it underpins a shipping product line.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — with one explicit caveat.

Justification. The chain is a two-record, wholly internal sequence: the sole inventor Joao de Oliveira assigned to Pragmatic Printing Limited (recorded 2016-12-28), and the same entity later recorded a Change of Name to Pragmatic Semiconductor Limited (2024-10-14) — no third party ever entered the chain. The current owner is an unquestioned operating semiconductor manufacturer that ships flexible ICs (FlexIC / NFC Connect) embodying the claimed capacitive-detection and proximity energy/data-transfer subject matter, and it holds ~407 patent families as ordinary corporate IP. No NPE signal is present at any of the eight checkpoints.

Caveat: the label chosen is the closest of the five permitted options, but I found no assertion litigation involving this patent — so the paper is an operating-company ownership chain rather than a confirmed assertion campaign. The "is suing actual competitors" element of the label is therefore unverified; the "current assignee ships products embodying the claims" element is verified. If your rubric requires the litigation element, the correct characterisation is simply "no NPE — operating-company-held."

Open items to close out manually (do not treat as settled):

1. Reel/frame numbers for the 2016-12-28 and 2024-10-14 recordings (not retrievable this session).
2. Correspondent of record for each recording — needed to complete Signal 3 (repeat correspondent) even though the low record count makes recurrence unlikely.
3. Execution dates of both instruments (only recordation dates are confirmed).

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent no. 10551218)
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10551218/en
• UK Companies House (confirming the 2020-11-09 name change) — https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07423954

I'll research the prior art citations for US 10,551,218, focusing on the references cited on the face of the patent and during prosecution.

Let me look for the specific "References Cited" (patent citations) on the face of US 10,551,218.

Let me find the International Search Report for the PCT counterpart (WO2015/177576) and the "Patent Citations" list on Google Patents.

Prior Art Analysis: US 10,551,218 B2

Important sourcing caveat up front

Before giving you the reference-by-reference § 102 table you asked for, I have to be explicit about a limitation in what I was able to retrieve. The authoritative list you want — the "References Cited / Patent Citations" block printed on the face of US 10,551,218 (and the "A/X/Y" documents listed in the International Search Report for its PCT parent, PCT/GB2015/051528, published as WO 2015/177576 A1) — did not come back in the searches I was able to run. The clean machine-readable copy of the patent text supplied to me is truncated at the "Classifications" heading; the front-page citation block was stripped out, and the Google Patents / Espacenet / EPO publication-server pages carrying that block were not retrievable within my search budget.

Per your standing rule, I will not fabricate a citations list. What follows is (a) the identification of the patent, (b) the citations I could verify exist as backward citations of '218, with the evidentiary basis for each, and (c) a clearly-labelled provisional § 102 mapping. Treat the § 102 column as a hypothesis to be confirmed against the reference text, not as a concluded finding.

---

1. Patent identified (interpreted literally)

This matches the litigation section already generated — no correction needed there.

---

2. Patent citations I was able to verify — with the basis for each

I used a cross-reference method: Google Patents renders a "Cited By" list on the page of an earlier document that shows which later patents cite it. When US 10,551,218 B2 appears in an earlier patent's "Cited By" list, that earlier patent is necessarily a backward citation of '218 (i.e., it sits in '218's "Patent Citations" block). Three such backward citations surfaced:

Confidence: medium for A and B (the "Cited By" placement was explicit in the results); medium-low for C (the result tied the publication US 2017/0138768 A1, not the granted number, to that page — same family, so still '218). I could not verify the exact front-page wording, examiner-vs-applicant origin, or the "relevant claim" annotations the USPTO prints for any of the three.

---

3. Provisional § 102 mapping (hypothesis — confirm against reference text)

The '218 claim set (from the specification and the two independent aspects) centres on:

• Indep. claim 1 (first aspect): base with first + second base electrodes; moveable entity with first + second moveable-entity electrodes that, in a first position, form a first capacitor (C1) and a second capacitor (C2); a first resistor R1 connecting the two moveable-entity electrodes; signal supply means driving the first base electrode with a time-varying signal; and signal detection means reading the second base electrode.
• Dependent claims: square-wave supply; RC < T (R = R1 + Rb, 1/C = 1/C1 + 1/C2); peak-detection diode + RC load; comparator/identity discrimination from R1; plate geometries (rectangular, sectorial, circular+annular); plural moveable entities with different characteristic R1; plural base-electrode pairs; multiplexing.
• Second independent aspect: the energy/data-transfer product claim — a moveable entity carrying circuitry (nodes N1/N2/N3; diode D1 forward N1→N2; diode D2 forward N3→N1; reservoir capacitor; resistor; data-detect, data-transmit and power-supply blocks) powered and communicated with through the single capacitively coupled electrode.

Bottom line of the hypothesis: Reference A (US 5,847,447) is the single most relevant of the three, aimed at the energy/data-transfer aspect. The feature that most plausibly distinguishes '218 from all three is the characteristic resistor R1 bridging the two capacitor armatures so the base reads identity from the peak amplitude at the second base electrode — I did not find that teaching in any of the three, so I would expect none of them to anticipate independent claim 1 outright.

---

4. False leads I explicitly rejected (do not auto-correct these)

The string "10551218" and partial matches surfaced several unrelated records that must not be folded into this analysis:

• An International Search Report for PCT/US2011/023710 listing US 2008/0056610 A1 (Kanda Yamato), US 2005/0201633 A1 (Joo-Hee Moon et al.), and US 6,337,925 B1 (Cohen, Scott D. et al.) as category-inventive art. These belong to a different PCT application, not to '218's PCT/GB2015/051528. I am flagging this because it is exactly the kind of near-miss that gets mis-imported into a prior-art table.
• The touch-sensor IPRs (Ingraham/Caldwell/Gerpheide, Samsung '183; Grummer/Tagg/Gillespie; Westerman/Bach) — different patents entirely.
• The "UK company registration number," clinical-trial subject ID, and plainsite examiner page carrying "10551218" noted in the litigation section — not patent citations.

---

5. What I could not do, and the authoritative next steps

I did not obtain the definitive front-page "References Cited" set, so I cannot claim my three-item list is complete. For a legally citable answer, pull the citations from:

1. USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Public Search for application 15/313,455 — the "References Cited" and the examiner's Form 892 (Notice of References Cited).
2. The ISR + written opinion for PCT/GB2015/051528 (WO 2015/177576 A1), which will carry the "A/X/Y" categories and the claims numbers each document was cited against — the single best source for the § 102 mapping you requested.
3. EP 3146296 B1 / EP 3760978 B1 European search reports (EPO Register), which typically list the same family of prior art with claim annotations.
4. Global Dossier for the file-wrapper citations, and the UK IPO file for GB 1414916.5 / GB 1409182.1, whose search reports often name GB/EP art the US examiner did not.

If you can paste the front-page "References Cited" block (or the ISR "Documents Considered to be Relevant" table) here, I will convert it directly into the full citation / date / description / § 102 claim-mapping table with the examiner's own claim annotations preserved.

I'll retrieve the prior-art citations and claim set for US 10,551,218 before building the §103 analysis.

Key finding: the granted US claim set differs from the specification's "first aspect." Let me verify the full claim set and locate the cited prior art.

Let me locate the actual cited prior art references (the "Prior Art" section) for this patent and its WO/EP counterparts.

Important scoping caveat — the "Prior Art section" was not recoverable

Before the analysis, a mandatory disclosure: the "Prior Art" / "References Cited" section of this page was not included in the material supplied to me, and my searches did not surface it. The full text you gave me is truncated at the description and contains no front‑page citation list, no IDS listing, and no EPO/PCT search‑report table for this application. I therefore could not chart the actual references cited against US 10,551,218 (or against its WO/EP counterparts WO 2015/177576 / EP 3146296). Everything below is therefore built from (a) the specification's own admitted prior art, (b) references I did verify exist in the same technical field, and (c) my own knowledge of the art, each labelled with a confidence marker. Do not treat the reference identities below as the patent's official citation list — they are candidate §103 art that must be run against PatentCenter/Global Dossier before use.

---

1. A verified correction to the earlier sections: what the granted claims actually are

The earlier sections reconstructed the claims from the specification's "aspects" and the GB counterpart. That reconstruction is wrong for the US patent. The granted US claim set (retrieved from Justia, https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10551218](/patent/10551218)) shows that claim 1 is the energy/data‑transfer aspect ("another aspect"), not the detection/identification aspect:

1. A system comprising a base and at least a first moveable entity, the first moveable entity being separate to and freely moveable with respect to the base and positionable in at least a first position… the base comprising at least a first base electrode, and the moveable entity comprising at least a first moveable entity electrode… arranged to couple to form a first capacitor when the first moveable entity is in the first position, the base further comprising signal supply means, arranged to supply a first time‑varying electrical signal to the first base electrode, and the first moveable entity further comprising circuitry connected to the first moveable entity electrode, wherein the base is arranged to power the circuitry via the time‑varying electrical signal and the coupling … and wherein the time‑varying electrical signal carries data and the circuitry is arranged to detect the data when the first moveable entity is in the first position.

Dependents 2–17 (as quoted by Justia): base signal‑detection means (2); detect presence (3) and identity (4) from the first base electrode; entity returns a second time‑varying signal carrying second data (5); first/second/third nodes with first diode N1→N2 and second diode N3→N1 (6); reservoir capacitor N2–N3 (7, 8); resistor N2–N3 (9, 10); data detection means (11); data transmission means (12); power supply circuitry powering 11/12 (13); entity = first portion + attached second portion carrying electrode and circuitry (14); second portion is a label (15); first portion is a container (16); container is plastic or metal (17).

Consequences for the §103 analysis:

• The "two base electrodes / two entity electrodes / one characteristic resistor" detection architecture — the core of the specification and of GB 2 532 938 — does not appear in the US claims of the '218 patent. Those parity/return‑path detector claims are what the continuation US 11,255,701 (from US 16/953,184) appears to carry (Google Patents family data confirms US 2020/0200571 A1 cites US 10,551,218).
• The '218 claim 1 is broad: "at least a first base electrode" / "at least a first moveable entity electrode" is satisfied by any capacitive‑coupling system with one or more plate pairs, including conventional two‑plate capacitive power transfer.

This materially changes the invalidity posture — and, as explained below, makes claim 1 easier to attack, not harder.

---

2. Legal framework and effective date

• AIA § 103 applies (filed 2015‑05‑26, after 2013‑03‑16). Priority date 2014‑05‑23 (GB 1409182.0). Prior art must qualify under § 102(a)(1) (publicly available before 2014‑05‑23) or § 102(a)(2) (effective‑filing‑date‑qualified U.S. patent documents), subject to the § 102(b)(1) grace period.
• Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966): scope/content, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): a claimed combination is obvious where the improvement is "a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions"; "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 unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."
• MPEP § 2143 rationales invoked below: (A) known elements combined per known methods with predictable results; (B) simple substitution of one known element for another; (C) use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement; (F) obvious design incentives/market forces.
• § 112(f) / Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part): "signal supply means," "signal detection means," "data detection means," "data transmission means," and (nonce‑word) "circuitry" / "power supply circuitry" are candidates for means‑plus‑function treatment, construed to the corresponding structure in the spec — e.g., signal generator 302, multiplexer 303, controller 301; diode 43 + resistor 44 + capacitor 45 peak converter; the internal diode pair D1/D2 with capacitor C and resistor R; comparator/ADC circuitry 47. This narrows the asserted scope and correspondingly narrows what the prior art must disclose. Note also the ITC/Fed. Cir. law that § 112(f) equivalence and prior‑art equivalence are different inquiries (see Atmel/GI‑M line) — for validity, the prior‑art structure need only disclose the claimed function.

PHOSITA: a B.S. in electrical engineering (or equivalent) with 2–4 years' experience in RFID/near‑field identification, capacitive sensing, or wireless/contactless power and data transfer. This is an ordinary, uncrowded art: the design of capacitive coupling links, rectifiers, and load‑modulation return paths is a routine EE skill set.

---

3. Prior‑art landscape

3.1 Admitted prior art (from the '218 specification itself) — HIGH confidence, citable directly

The Background (§0002) expressly admits:

• Inductive RF ID tags are known, each comprising "a circuit including an inductor," with a base generating an electromagnetic field; the tag is brought into the field, energy is supplied to the tag by inductive coupling, and the tag transmits a signal enabling the base to identify it.
• The stated problem: such systems "are relatively complex, and the necessity for each tag to include a respective inductor poses challenges" to complexity and cost reduction.

This is an admission that the entire "base powers a separable tag over a wireless coupling, and the tag identifies itself by returning data" architecture was known, with the invention's asserted distinction being (i) capacitive rather than inductive coupling and (ii) inductor‑free, printable tag electronics. Under KSR rationale (B) ("simple substitution of one known element for another"), swapping an inductive link for a capacitive link — where the art already used capacitive coupling for the same purposes — is the paradigm of obviousness, provided one finds art establishing that capacitive coupling for power and/or data was itself known and predictable at the 2014‑05‑23 date. It was.

3.2 Field-verified candidate art (existence confirmed by search, content not yet read) — MEDIUM confidence

3.3 Well-known art from my own knowledge — must be independently verified before use

• Finkenzeller, RFID Handbook (3rd ed. 2010) — the standard treatise; includes transponder supply/rectification, load modulation (transponder→reader data by modulating its own load), and the treatment of coupling variants including electrical/capacitive ("close") coupling where reader and transponder communicate via facing conductive surfaces (used where the tag carries no coil). Confidence that the load‑modulation and transponder supply sections exist: high. Confidence that a dedicated capacitive/electric‑field coupling section is present and pre‑2014: moderate — verify chapter/page before citing.
• Zimmerman, "Personal Area Networks: Near‑field intrabody communication," IBM Systems Journal 35(3/4), 1996 (and the related Zimmerman/Gershenfeld patents, e.g. US 5,914,701) — capacitive (electrostatic) coupling of AC power and data between electrodes through a conductive medium, including the use of a conductive body as an intermediate armature. Directly relevant to claim 1's data‑plus‑power over a capacitive link and to claim 17's metal container acting as an intermediate conductive plate. Confidence: high that the 1996 PAN paper exists and is capacitive; verify the patent number.
• Capacitive liquid‑level / through‑wall sensing: measuring contents of a plastic or metal container by capacitive coupling through a wall is decades‑old instrumentation practice. Relevant to claims 14–17. Confidence: high as general knowledge; specific pre‑2014 patent citations still required.
• Cockcroft–Walton / Villard cascade voltage doublers — the diode–capacitor network of claims 6–8 is a textbook circuit (and a standard RFID transponder rectifier topology). Confidence: very high.

Best single source of this patent's actual prior‑art section: the EP 3146296 B1 / WO 2015/177576 search report (EPO X/Y citations) and the U.S. file wrapper for 15/313,455. Those will give the examiner‑vetted art, which is far stronger than anything I can assemble from search snapshots here.

---

4. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Claim 1 obvious over Kline (or Liu & Hu) in view of an in‑band data‑over‑power teaching (Finkenzeller / PAN art); alternatively anticipated

Motivation / why obvious (KSR (A), (B), (C), (F)): (i) Both references are in the same field of endeavour (wireless power/data to a separable device). (ii) The substitution is a simple substitution of one known coupling mechanism (capacitive plates) for another (inductive coils) that the '218 specification itself frames as the whole point — the spec admits the inductive version and presents capacitive as the lower‑cost substitute. (iii) The known problem of the day — cost/complexity of coils, and the drive to printed, coil‑free, thin label electronics — supplies the design incentive. (iv) Results are predictable: the received voltage is simply a capacitive divider, rectified as in the power‑transfer art. (v) The claim's functional language ("carries data and the circuitry is arranged to detect the data") reads on any of the ubiquitous schemes for sending control/ID/authentication payloads over an AC power carrier.

Note the practical point: because claim 1 requires only "at least a first" electrode and no second electrode, a conventional two‑plate CPT system with in‑band communication satisfies every limitation. There is no requirement of the single‑electrode/virtual‑ground topology that gives the specification its distinctiveness. If a § 102 reference exists (an electric‑field coupled identification/charging system with reader→tag data), it should be the lead argument and Ground 1 the fallback.

Ground 2 — Claims 2–5 obvious over Ground 1 further in view of the admitted RFID art

• Claims 2–4 (base detects presence/identity from the first base electrode sensing a return signal). Motivation: any half‑duplex wireless power/data link requires the primary side to sense its own electrode — in RFID this is the reader's demodulation of the transponder's load modulation (Finkenzeller, admitted‑art class); in the parent's own capacitive scheme, sensing the driven plate for a returned, impedance‑modulated signal is the standard alternative to adding a second plate. It is a known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement (KSR (C)).
• Claim 5 (return a second time‑varying signal carrying second data; base detects it). This is load modulation / back‑modulation — the canonical passive transponder return path in the RFID art admitted in the specification. Motivation: to use the same physical link for authentication/ID confirmation; predictable and routine.

Ground 3 — Claims 6, 7, 8 obvious (diode network + reservoir capacitor)

Claims 6–8 recite a first diode N1→N2, a second diode N3→N1, and a capacitor across N2–N3 — i.e., a half‑wave voltage doubler / Villard cascade. This is textbook power‑electronics (Cockcroft–Walton), and equivalent diode‑capacitor front‑ends are the conventional way to rectify an AC signal induced on a floating electrode and build a DC rail. Motivation: the entity's circuitry requires a DC supply derived from the AC on its single electrode; a doubling rectifier with a reservoir capacitor is the routine, predictable answer. Any of the CPT receiver arts (Kline; Restech WO 2009/089342 if its disclosure so supports) shows the rectifier + smoothing capacitor combination across an electrode. Strong §103 ground; expect KSR rationale (A)/(C) to carry it.

Ground 4 — Claims 9, 10 obvious (resistor N2–N3; current driven through it)

A load resistor across the rectified rail is elementary; its function of drawing a defined current is inherent and predictable. Motivation: define/program the load (identity or a sensing parameter) and provide a discharge path for the reservoir capacitor. Also anticipated by any of the load‑modulation art where the transponder varies its own load resistance to signal back.

Ground 5 — Claims 11, 12, 13 obvious (data detection/transmission means + power supply circuitry)

Claims 11–13 recite the canonical passive transponder architecture: demodulator (data detection) and modulator (data transmission) powered from a harvested DC rail. Finkenzeller's transponder chapters, the PAN art, and any passive‑tag reference supply this. Motivation: to keep the entity passive and cheap (no battery), receive its power from the incoming signal — exactly the design objective the specification itself states for prior‑art RFID. KSR (A), (C), (F) all apply.

Ground 6 — Claims 14–17 obvious (label on a container; plastic or metal container; coupling via wall/contents)

• Claim 14–15: mounting the electrode + circuitry as a printed label/adhesive tag on a host object is the ordinary deployment mode for printed electronics and for RFID labels (admitted art). Motivation: retrofitting existing containers without modifying the production line — the definition of a predictable, market‑driven design choice (KSR (F)).
• Claim 16: the host object being a container is a non‑technical field‑of‑use choice; no technical effect is attributed to "container" per se beyond the coupling path.
• Claim 17 (plastic or metal container): coupling through a dielectric wall is the baseline of capacitive sensing; coupling through a conductive metal wall/body as an intermediate armature is taught or suggested by the body‑channel/electrostatic‑coupling art (Zimmerman/Gershenfeld — a conductive body as an intermediate capacitive medium) and by capacitive sensing on metallic objects. Motivation: read/identify contents of packages without line of sight or electrical contact; predictable result.

Honest weakness: I am most exposed here. The specific combination of (a) a label‑borne single electrode, (b) coupling through a sealed container wall and via the contents, with (c) power + data, is the specification's genuinely distinctive commercial scenario (the FIG. 29 "liquid is part of the system; also usable for level detection" embodiment). If the claim's container/label dependents were asserted, expect a genuine non‑obviousness fight on whether container‑wall coupling was known to be adequate at these frequencies/couplings — that is the strongest place for a patent owner to argue.

---

5. Claim‑by‑claim summary

---

6. Counterarguments a patent owner will raise — and how they fare

1. "The prior art is inductive; claim 1 requires capacitive power and in‑band data, and no single reference does both." This is the strongest owner argument, and it is a combination argument, not a teaching‑away argument. KSR does not require a single reference; it requires an articulated reason. The specification's own admission that RFID inductive coupling achieves the same result supplies the reason, and CPT + data‑over‑power supplies the means. Anticipate it by finding one reference that does both (the EPO search report may contain exactly such a document) to convert the §103 ground into a §102 ground.
2. "Capacitive coupling is unsuitable for power transfer / requires large plates / short range." A limitation, not a teaching away from the claimed use — and it in fact points toward the short‑range, contact‑proxy applications claimed (pad/label/container). This is a "known‑limitation" argument, generally unpersuasive (see In re Merck line on references combined as a whole).
3. § 112(f) narrowing of "signal supply means," "signal detection means," "circuitry." This cuts both ways: it narrows scope, but it also means the prior art need only disclose a generator/multiplexer, a peak‑detector or comparator, etc. — all common structures. Watch the risk, however, that the owner argues the specific two‑diode/half‑capacitor topology of FIG. 24 is the disclosed structure for "circuitry," which would narrow claim 1 substantially.
4. Objective indicia (Graham factor 4). None are documented: per the earlier sections, there is no litigation, no PTAB proceeding, and no evidence of copying, licensing‑driven praise, or long‑felt need attributable to this patent's claims. Absent a nexus, secondary considerations should carry little weight. If the owner wants to argue commercial success in printed‑electronics/smart‑packaging, demand a nexus.
5. Priority‑date integrity. Priority rests on GB 1409182.0 (2014‑05‑23). Claim 1's "base is arranged to power the circuitry" and "signal carries data" limitations are squarely disclosed in the GB filing (GB 2 532 938 / GB 2 531 694), so a § 102(b)(1) grace‑period or priority attack is likely to fail — but verify the GB text for the "freely moveable" limitation, which was evidently added to claim 1 during U.S. prosecution (it appears in the granted claim but not in the specification's "aspect" language). That amendment is a written‑description priority vulnerability worth checking: if "separate to and freely moveable" is not supported in GB 1409182.0, the effective date could shift and enlarge the art pool. This is the single highest‑value item to investigate.

---

7. Recommended next steps

1. Pull the real prior‑art section from: (a) the U.S. file wrapper for 15/313,455 (IDS/PTO‑892 and examiner citations); (b) the WO 2015/177576 / EP 3146296 B1 search report (EPO X/Y documents — the most likely source of a capacitive‑coupled‑identification X reference); (c) the ISR/Written Opinion for PCT/GB2015/051528. My searches did not return these and I will not guess at their contents.
2. Verify the five references marked MEDIUM/well‑known above before relying on them — read the actual disclosures (especially US 2006/0238034 A1 and WO 2009/089342 A2, both already confirmed to exist in the H02J 50/05 field and both pre‑dating 2014‑05‑23).
3. Search specifically for pre‑2014 art that combines AC power and data over a mutual‑capacitance link (electric‑field coupling transponders; capacitively coupled smart cards; body‑coupled communication with power). A single such reference converts Grounds 1–5 from §103 into §102.
4. Check priority support for "separate to and freely moveable" in GB 1409182.0 and in the PCT as filed.
5. Coordinate with the family: the detection/identification claims live in US 11,255,701 (from 16/953,184) and in EP 3146296 B1 / EP 3760978 B1. Any invalidity picture for the portfolio — not just the '218 — must chart those separately; the art that defeats '218 claim 1 is not the art that defeats the '701 detector claims.

Confidence statement: The claim identification (claim 1 = capacitive power + data transfer) is high confidence (direct quotation from a claims listing). The §103 reasoning is sound as analysis, but the reference identities in §3.2 are only partly verified existence‑level and the §3.3 references are from my prior knowledge — each must be confirmed by reading the disclosure before being written into a brief or petition.