US 10620024

I'll search for litigation/docket information specific to this patent number, then summarize based on the authoritative patent text I have.

US 10,620,024 B2 — Summary

Search note (litigation/docket check): I ran targeted searches for this specific number in connection with USPTO records, infringement suits, and Federal Circuit 2026 dockets. I found no litigation, IPR/PGR, or CAFC appeal involving US 10,620,024. The only forward citation surfaced is US 12,031,852 B2 (Micro Motion, Inc., 2024) — a citation relationship, not a dispute. I could not independently verify a CAFC 2026 docket for this patent; treat any contrary claim as unverified. The summary below is grounded in the authoritative full text of the patent.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

"A measuring tube for a magneto-inductive flow measuring device, comprising a support tube and a liner arranged in the support tube wherein the support tube has on its inner surface a surface structure, which prevents a rotary movement of the liner in the measuring tube, and a magneto-inductive flow measuring device with such a measuring tube."

Technical problem and solution

The patent addresses a known failure mode in magneto-inductive (electromagnetic) flowmeters: a metal (typically non‑ferromagnetic stainless steel) support tube must be electrically insulated from the medium by a plastic liner, but liners — especially poly-fluorinated polymers such as PFA — bond poorly to metal. Where a perforated‑sheet support body is held only by press‑fit, the compressive stress can relax over time and the liner can rotate (twist) inside the measuring tube. The invention solves this by forming an anti‑rotation surface structure directly on the inner surface of the support tube itself (rather than relying on an external annular stop or on a separate insert), preferably longitudinal grooves formed integrally by cold working / rotary swaging. Encircling bulges formed in the same swaging operation serve as an axial stop against longitudinal liner displacement.

Independent claims — plain language

Claim 1 (measuring tube): A measuring tube for a magneto-inductive flowmeter has (a) a support tube and (b) a liner inside it, where the support tube's inner surface carries a surface structure that prevents the liner from rotating; and the surface structure comprises at least one groove running parallel to the measuring tube axis. That last element ("groove... extends parallel to a measuring tube axis") is the added limitation that distinguishes it from a bare "anti‑rotation structure" recitation.

Claim 14 (magneto-inductive flow measuring device): A complete flow measuring device comprising the same measuring tube (support tube + liner, with an inner‑surface anti‑rotation structure comprising at least one axis‑parallel groove), plus a magnet system and at least two measuring electrodes, arranged on or in the measuring tube.

Claim 15 depends on claim 14 and adds that a support body is arranged within the support tube, embedded in the liner, and has a reduced cross section in the region of the measuring electrodes (i.e., the flow‑conditioning taper). It is a dependent claim, not independent, though it carries the arguably most commercially specific limitation.

Dependent claims at a glance

• 2 – surface structure formed of the support tube's own material (integral).
• 3–4, 13 – surface structure formed by a deformation method → cold working → swaging.
• 5 – symmetric encircling bulges of the tube wall; inner surface essentially wetted by liner material (axial anti‑displacement).
• 6–7 – support body inside the support tube; formed of perforated sheet or expanded metal.
• 8–10 – support body formed by a deformation method → cold working → swaging.
• 11–12 – a plurality of grooves; symmetrically distributed over the full circumference of a tube section.

Two textual observations a reviewer should flag

1. Claim‑dependency/antecedent irregularity. Claim 8 ("The measuring tube as claimed in claim 1, wherein: said support body is formed by a deformation method") depends on claim 1, which does not recite any support body; the support body is first introduced in claim 6. Under a strict literal reading the antecedent basis for "said support body" in claim 8 is not supplied by claim 1, and claims 9–10 inherit that chain. I note this as a literal claim‑drafting observation, not a legal conclusion of invalidity.
2. Specification cross‑reference appears inconsistent. The description states the object is achieved "by a measuring tube claim and by a magneto-inductive flow measuring device as defined in claim 10." In the granted claim set, the independent device claim is claim 14, and claim 10 is a swaging‑dependent measuring‑tube claim. Interpreted literally, the specification's internal pointer does not match the granted claim numbering (likely a carry‑over from an earlier claim set).

Manufacturing teaching (useful context)

The patent distinguishes casting, chip‑removing (e.g., milling), and deformation methods by fiber/grain flow: casting leaves fiber flow unchanged; chip removal interrupts it (and would materially weaken a pressure‑bearing tube); deformation (rotary swaging) compresses fibers without interruption, giving a measurable strength increase. A single swaging operation is taught as simultaneously forming the grooves (twist prevention) and the bulges (axial stop). PFA is named as the especially preferred liner material, and installed tube lengths under 200 mm (especially under 150 mm) and nominal diameters ≤ DN15 are highlighted as cases where swaging is the practical way to introduce a twist‑preventer.

Confidence: high on all bibliographic, claim, and specification content (taken directly from the authoritative patent text). Low/uncertain on litigation status — absence of search results is not proof of absence of proceedings.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,620,024 across patent litigation databases.

Those results aren't relevant. Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me query litigation-specific databases directly.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 10,620,024

Bottom line

Based on the searches performed, I found no evidence of any litigation (district court, ITC, PTAB, or CAFC) involving U.S. Patent No. 10,620,024. I was unable to identify any plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, or filing date, because no case assertions of this specific patent surfaced.

I want to be forthright rather than manufacture a result: I cannot report case details that I could not confirm, and I will not fabricate them. What follows distinguishes (a) what the patent record actually shows, (b) what my searches did and did not return, and (c) the caveats on this negative finding.

What the patent record itself shows

US 10,620,024 ("Magneto-inductive flow measuring device having a support tube with structure to prevent rotary movement of the liner," App. No. 15/567,269, filed 2016-04-25, priority DE 102015107119.3 of 2015-05-07, granted 2020-04-14) is assigned to Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG. The Google Patents record I worked from contains litigation-related fields ("Cited By," "Families Citing," "Citations," "Legal Events") and shows:

• No litigation section (no district court or ITC cases listed).
• Cited By (1): US 12,031,852 B2 (Micro Motion, Inc.), priority 2021-08-19, granted 2024-07-09, "Magnetic flowmeter with flow tube liner having adhesion feature in an exterior surface." This is a citation by a later patent — i.e., arguably relevant to the subject-matter landscape and a possible competitive/design-around indicator — not a lawsuit.
• Legal Events: the patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees (2024-05-20 notice; expiration effective 2024-04-14). An abandoned patent is far less likely to be asserted in litigation.

What my searches returned

I searched for the patent number and assignee across general web and patent/litigation-oriented sources (including Unified Patents' portal references, CourtListener/PACER-style materials, and CAFC/Justia decisions). Result:

• No docket, complaint, ITC Section 337 investigation, PTAB petition (IPR/PGR), or CAFC appeal identifying US 10,620,024 as an asserted or challenged patent.
• The only Endress+Hauser Flowtec PTAB activity that surfaced was PGR2018-00017 (Micro Motion v. Endress+Hauser Flowtec, filed 2017-12-11, institution denied) — and that proceeding does not concern US 10,620,024. I am including it only to show I checked the assignee's litigation history; it is not a hit for this patent.
• Numerous search hits contained similar-looking numbers (e.g., 10,659,885; 10,820,117; 10,620,... patterns) from unrelated litigations (the Taction v. Apple haptic patents, etc.). Per your instruction, I disregarded those and did not treat them as results for 10,620,024.

Required caveats (important for a due-diligence answer)

1. Search-tool limitation. I was cut off before completing the full set of targeted database queries (CourtListener, Unified Patents litigation caselist, Docket Alarm/Docket Navigator, and PACER). This is therefore a best-efforts negative, not a certified "no litigation exists."
2. Settlement/quiet cases don't always appear. Even a complete public-records search can miss sealed complaints, arbitrations, or unrecorded licenses/settlements. And litigation over sibling family members (EP 3 292 381, CN 107636422, DE 102015107119, WO 2016/177594) would not necessarily name the U.S. patent.
3. Timing. Data is as reflected in sources retrieved around this review; dockets can change.

Recommended next steps to confirm

• Unified Patents Litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) and PTAB caselist filtered to patent 10,620,024 and to Endress+Hauser Flowtec.
• CourtListener / RECAP and PACER case search for "10,620,024" and "10620024."
• USITC EDIS for any Section 337 complaint naming the patent.
• CAFC docket search; and a commercial docket tool (Docket Navigator / Lex Machina) for a definitive check.

Conclusion: No litigation is known for U.S. Patent No. 10,620,024 on the basis of the searches conducted. I could not supply plaintiff/defendant/jurisdiction/case-number/outcome details because no such case was found, and I decline to invent them.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: zero (0). The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for US 10,620,024. My independent web searching (PTAB E2E, Docket Alarm, and general IPR/PGR queries pairing the patent number and "Endress+Hauser Flowtec" / "magneto-inductive flow measuring device") surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, termination, or Federal Circuit appeal referencing this patent. I flag this as "not found," not as a verified negative — the ODP ingest block is the authoritative list, and it is empty.

Defensive posture this creates: this is not a "hardened by surviving IPRs" posture and not a "claims canceled" posture — it is a never-challenged, and now lapsed, patent. The more probative fact for a defendant is not in the PTAB record at all: per the structured data, the patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees (LAPS event 2024-05-20; patent discontinuation 2024-06-11; effective lapse date 2024-04-14). US 10,620,024 is an expired, unenforceable-for-ongoing-conduct patent that no petitioner ever bothered to attack. That combination is a defendant's best friend — but with the caveat below on the 6-year damages lookback.

Proceedings

None. There are no proceeding-numbered sections to write, because no proceeding exists. I will not manufacture numbers to fill the template.

For completeness, the items I checked and found no proceeding attached to:

Closest related-artifact caveat, so you don't mistake it for a proceeding: Google Patents lists one "Cited By" reference — US 12,031,852 B2 (Micro Motion, Inc.; granted 2024-07-09), "Magnetic flowmeter with flow tube liner having adhesion feature in an exterior surface." That is a patent citation, not a PTAB challenge. Several Endress+Hauser sibling applications appear in the family record (DE 102015107119 A1; WO 2016177594 A1; EP 3292381 A1; CN 107636422 A), but those are foreign/domestic counterparts of this patent, not attacks on it.

Strategic summary

Claim status: nothing canceled, nothing adjudicated, nothing estopped. All 15 claims stand as granted — independent claim 1 (measuring tube with a support tube, a liner, and an inner-surface structure comprising at least one groove extending parallel to the measuring tube axis), its dependents 2–13, independent claim 14 (the flow measuring device), and dependent claim 15. Because no AIA trial ever ran, there is no PTAB claim-level narrowing to rely on: unlike a patent that has been through IPRs, every claim here is UNTESTED before the Board. You cannot point to a canceled claim and tell opposing counsel the assertion is dead on arrival.

Estoppel landscape: essentially empty, but so is the offensive value. Because there is no petitioner, § 315(e)(2) estoppel binds no one — no party is barred from raising any prior-art ground in district court or before the Office. Practically, though, the patent's lapse moots most of this: with the fee lapse effective 2024-04-14, infringement liability attaches only to conduct before expiration, and § 286's six-year damages lookback therefore caps the exposure window at roughly 2018-04-14 through 2024-04-14 (i.e., from six years before a hypothetical complaint to the lapse date). Any accused product that first entered the market after April 2024 is outside the damages period entirely. Also note that an IPR against an expired patent is legally permissible but of little practical utility, and the Board applies Phillips construction to expired claims — so a post-lapse IPR petition is a poor investment absent a live damages period.

Pattern signals: all negative. There is no repeat petitioner, no serial-filing pattern by a competitor, no aggressive patent-owner PTAB-appeal history (no FWD to appeal from), and no defensive aggregator in the chain. The prosecution history itself is unremarkable except as a signal of examiner pressure: a non-final rejection (2019-05-15), a response (2019-08-24), a final rejection (2019-08-29), a response after final (2019-12-09), and a notice of allowance (2019-12-20) — i.e., the claims were allowed only after a final-rejection round, which tells you the granted scope was fought for and is narrower than the as-filed claims. That is a useful claim-construction breadcrumb even without an IPR: prosecution history estoppel and the narrowing amendments made after final rejection should be mined from the file wrapper before you build any invalidity or non-infringement theory.

Foreign posture reinforces the picture. The family shows the German application withdrawn (not_active), the WO application ceased, the EP application withdrawn, and only the Chinese application still pending/active as of ingest. A patent family this aggressively abandoned abroad — and then abandoned in the US for non-payment of maintenance fees — signals a patent owner that has moved on from this asset.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not build a defense around a PTAB record — there isn't one. If you receive a demand letter citing US 10,620,024, the correct first response is not an IPR petition; it is a lapse-and-limitations analysis. Confirm the maintenance-fee lapse and effective date (2024-04-14) against the USPTO PatentCenter maintenance-fee record for US 15/567,269, and confirm no petition for reinstatement was granted (reinstatement of an unintentionally lapsed patent under 35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(1) is possible within limited windows and would revive enforceability — verify this specifically, because it is the one fact that would change the analysis).
2. If reinstated, the exposure is still retroactive only to 2018-04-14 under § 286, and you should immediately run an on-sale / public-use / prior-art sweep dated before 2015-05-07 (the DE priority date) rather than an IPR. An ex parte reexam or a district-court invalidity case is the correct offensive vehicle against a lapsed patent; an IPR is not, because there is no live prospective injunction to win.
3. Mine the prosecution file wrapper for the post-final-rejection amendments (responses dated 2019-08-24 and 2019-12-09). What was added to claim 1 to overcome the final rejection — presumably the "groove extends parallel to a measuring tube axis" limitation — is your narrowest-claim-construction leverage, and the prosecution history estoppel zone around it is your best non-infringement wedge for any accused tube that uses, e.g., circumferential grooves, knurling, or a non-parallel surface structure.
4. I could not query PTAB E2E or CourtListener directly in this session, and I found no proceeding via web search. Before making a representation to a court or opposing counsel that "no IPR exists," re-verify on PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/) and CourtListener — the ODP block is the canonical source and it reports none, but I am flagging the search-based negative as a lower-confidence confirmation.

Bottom line for a defendant today: the patent is unadjudicated but expired, with all 15 claims technically intact and no estoppel operating against anyone. The attack surface is the fee lapse and the § 286 damages window, not a PTAB kill shot — and the absence of any IPR over a five-year grant life is itself a market signal that competitors did not view this patent as a serious threat worth the filing fee.

I'll verify the assignment record for this patent and capture the reel/frame and correspondent details.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,620,024 B2

Verification status / data gap up front: I pulled the ownership record from the authoritative Google Patents legal-events record for this patent (which mirrors the USPTO Assignment Center data) and attempted targeted queries against the USPTO Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov and open sources. The chain of title below is grounded in the single recorded assignment disclosed in the patent's own legal-events table (Reel/Frame 043884/0951). I was unable to retrieve the recorded correspondent of record (the submitting attorney/firm) for that reel/frame — the Google Patents legal-events feed does not expose the correspondent field, and my Assignment Center queries did not complete. I am flagging that explicitly rather than supplying a name I could not confirm. Treat signal #3 below accordingly.

Inventors

Pattern assessment — no "departing inventor" red flag. The classic fire-sale precursor (all inventors exiting the original assignee within ~12 months of filing) is absent. Voigt continued to appear as an Endress+Hauser Flowtec inventor on later-dated E+H applications, indicating he remained inside the E+H organization well past this 2015/2016 filing. This is consistent with a routine employee-inventor relationship, not a distressed divestiture.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG, Kägenstrasse 7, 4153 Reinach, Switzerland.
• Corporate context: Flowtec AG is the flow-measurement arm of the Endress+Hauser Group, a Swiss, family-controlled (i.e., privately held) industrial process-automation and measurement-instrumentation manufacturer. Because the group is private, the requested SEC cross-reference (10-K/8-K) returns nothing — there are no public filings to trace ownership through.
• Product embodiment: Yes. Endress+Hauser Flowtec commercially ships electromagnetic (magneto-inductive) flowmeters (e.g., the Promag family) that use metal support tubes with PFA/PFA-type liners and anti-rotation liner anchoring — the exact subject matter of claims 1/14. This is an operating company shipping products embodying the claims, not a licensing shell.
• Current status: Operating (parent group active). The patent itself is a different matter: it is Expired – Fee Related, having lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees (2024-05-20 lapse notice; effective expiration 2024-04-14). Ownership nevertheless remained with Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG through lapse.

Assignment timeline

There is exactly one recorded assignment on this patent. All other entries in the legal-events table are prosecution and fee events (STPP docketing, office actions, allowance, STCF grant, FEPP entity-status and maintenance-fee events) — i.e., not conveyances — and are excluded.

• 2017-09-08 (executed) / recorded 2017-10-17 — Reel 043884/0951
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: VOIGT, Frank (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: ENDRESS + HAUSER FLOWTEC AG (Switzerland)
  • Correspondent: ⚠️ Not retrievable from the sources queried. The reel/frame (043884/0951) is confirmed via the patent's legal-events record, but the recording correspondent's name/firm was not exposed by the Google Patents feed and my Assignment Center queries did not complete. I cannot identify whether this correspondent recurs elsewhere on the site. Flagging as an open verification item, not a finding.
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment (employment-obligation transfer of the inventor's rights to his employer), recorded off the PCT national-stage entry of PCT/EP2016/059141 (~17 months after the 2016-04-25 international filing). Not a fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

No post-issuance assignments exist. There is no recorded change of owner after grant (2020-04-14) and none through the 2024 maintenance-fee lapse. Under the rule you specified, this absence is itself the finding: the original operating assignee still owns the patent (subject to it now being expired for fee non-payment).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10620024
    2015 : Priority filed by Voigt
    2016 : PCT filed by Endress Hauser
    2017 : Inventor assigns to Endress Hauser
    2020 : Patent issued
    2024 : Lapsed for unpaid maintenance fee

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only transfer runs to the original operating manufacturer (Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG), not to a licensing-only LLC. No "IP / Holdings / Ventures" suffix appears anywhere in the chain (Reel 043884/0951). No registered-agent-service address is involved.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the assignor (natural person Frank Voigt) nor the assignee (Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG) appears on any public NPE/asserter roster (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc.). The current owner is the operating manufacturer itself.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not assessable. The chain contains only one recorded link, so there is no recurrence to measure even in principle. Separately, I could not retrieve the recorded correspondent for Reel 043884/0951 from the sources queried. No finding can be made either way.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. One assignment, no chained LLCs, no 24-month multi-hop sequence. Nothing to compare on correspondent address or common principals.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. There is no known infringement suit naming this patent (consistent with the prior litigation section). The lone assignment (2017) predates the 2020 grant and is unrelated to assertion timing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG is an operating, solvent group entity; no Chapter 7/11 proceeding is associated with this patent's chain.

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to a third-party NPE that would then assert on E+H's behalf. The patent never left the original assignee's hands.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at the original operating assignee (and then expires for fee non-payment).

Forward-citation note (not a signal): US 12,031,852 B2 (Micro Motion, Inc., 2024), "Magnetic flowmeter with flow tube liner having adhesion feature in an exterior surface," cites this patent. This is a citation relationship between competitors' technical disclosures, not an assignment, license, or dispute. Note also that Micro Motion appears as the original assignee of related art (e.g., EP 3 049 770), i.e., a normal industry competitor — citation ≠ assertion.

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

The record contains a single recorded conveyance — the inventor-to-employer assignment of 2017-09-08 (Reel 043884/0951) to Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG — and nothing else. Per the taxonomy you specified, a chain consisting of only the original assignment maps to "Insufficient data," but the substance of that record is affirmatively non-NPE: ownership stayed with the original operating manufacturer (which ships flowmeters embodying the claims), no licensing-only entity ever entered the chain, there is no known litigation, and the patent simply lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees effective 2024-04-14. If a substantively labeled verdict were required rather than the literal "only the original assignment" bucket, the correct characterization would be operating-company-owned / non-asserting — but note the two caveats that keep me from overclaiming: (a) the correspondent of record for Reel 043884/0951 was not retrievable, so signal #3 is unresolved; and (b) the absence of litigation is a best-efforts negative, not a certified one.

Verification link: Search by patent number at the USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) — query 10620024 / application 15/567,269 under reel 043884/0951 to retrieve the recorded correspondent I was unable to confirm.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 10,620,024, grounding each in the authoritative citation list from the patent record and verifying key references via search.

Excellent — key references are surfacing. Let me verify several more cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,620,024 B2

0. Identification and method

Patent analyzed: US 10,620,024 B2, "Magneto-inductive flow measuring device having a support tube with structure to prevent rotary movement of the liner," App. No. 15/567,269, Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG, priority 2015-05-07 (DE 10 2015 107 119.3), granted 2020-04-14. (This matches the earlier-generated summary; I build on it rather than repeat it.)

What I searched: the specific number 10,620,024 only. The source of record is the full patent text (Google Patents mirror of the USPTO record) plus targeted verification searches on the individual cited references. I did not reach USPTO PatentCenter directly; the citation list below is the one printed on the face of the patent itself, which is the authoritative enumeration of the art the examiner and third parties placed of record.

Scope note: "Prior art for the patent" here = the references listed in the patent's own Citations (25 / 31) and Family Cites sections, plus the three non-patent citations. I found no prior art beyond what the patent already lists. A claim-by-claim anticipation opinion requires full-text reading of each reference; where I verified full text I say so, and where I only have the face-of-patent metadata I say so explicitly. I do not assert anticipation I cannot ground.

1. The most relevant references (deep dive)

1.1 DE 10 358 268 A1 — the closest reference

• Full citation: DE 10358268A1, "Magnetisch-induktiver Durchflußaufnehmer und Verfahren zu dessen Herstellung," Endress + Hauser Process Solutions AG. Priority 2003-12-11; published 2005-07-21. US counterpart: US 7,823,461 B2 (Endress+Hauser Flowtec).
• Description (verified from full text): A magneto-inductive flow sensor with a carrier/support tube and an insulating liner, in which a support skeleton ("Stützkörper") is embedded in the liner. The carrier tube has at least one first groove formed into the tube wall and open toward the lumen, at least partially filled by liner material and/or support-skeleton material (forming a ridge). The stated purpose is expressly twofold: to reduce cracking on temperature change and to effectively prevent "Verdrehen oder Verschieben des Stützkörpers" — twisting or displacement of the liner/support body in the carrier tube (verified in the German abstract and the US counterpart text: "prevent twisting … of the support body in the carrier tube even in the case of susceptible material shrinkage").
• §102 relevance — the reference most likely to be raised: It discloses elements (A) magneto-inductive flow sensor, (B) support tube, (C) liner, (D) inner-surface groove, and — critically — (E) the anti-rotation purpose in haec verba.
  • Claim 1: potentially anticipatory if the groove is shown extending parallel to the tube axis (limitation (G)). The US counterpart describes an embodiment with an annular (circumferential) groove; other embodiments/ridge geometry must be checked against the "parallel to axis" limitation. This is the single most important verification point in the whole analysis.
  • Claim 2 (structure formed of the tube's own material) — the groove is "eingeformt in eine Wand des Trägerrohrs," i.e., formed in the wall → potentially anticipated.
  • Claims 6–7 (support body embedded in the liner; perforated/metal grid) — the embedded support skeleton is disclosed.
  • Claims 11–12 (plural grooves) — "at least a second groove" is expressly disclosed.
  • Claim 14 (flow device with magnet system and ≥2 electrodes) — it is a flow sensor with coils and electrodes.

1.2 US 7,895,902 B2 / US 2009/0178489 A1 — Toshiba

• Full citation: US 7,895,902 B2 (pub. 2011-03-01) / US 2009/0178489 A1 (pub. 2009-07-16), Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba, "Electromagnetic flow meter including circumferential grooves on an inner surface of a measurement pipe for fixing a liner." Filing 2008-01-15.
• Description (verified): Measurement pipe with a resin lining on its inner surface; the inner surface carries one or more grooves (semicircular / rectangular / triangular / inclined) into which the resin flows to anchor the lining and form reinforcing ribs. The grooves of the principal embodiments run circumferentially. The background expressly discusses dovetail grooves formed either in a circumferential direction or in an axial direction (attributed to JP Utility Model 61-16493).
• §102 relevance: Discloses (B)–(D) and a groove (F). Two gaps to note: (i) the thrust of the document is anti-detachment / rib-reinforcement, not anti-rotation; the circumferential orientation addresses axial displacement, which tends to teach away from the rotary-movement limitation (E); (ii) element (G) (axis-parallel groove) appears only in the background discussion of third-party art, not as the invention's own claimed embodiment.
  • Claim 1: not a clean §102 anticipation on the verified disclosure; strongest as §103 art when combined with an anti-rotation teaching (e.g., DE 10 358 268).
  • Claims 2, 11, 12: potentially anticipated (grooves integral to the pipe inner surface; plurality of grooves; distribution).
  • Claim 14: an electromagnetic flow meter with electrodes is disclosed.

1.3 US 7,673,523 B2 / US 2008/0196510 A1 — Siemens (Nielsen)

• Full citation: US 2008/0196510 A1 (pub. 2008-08-21; priority 2004-11-10) / US 7,673,523 B2, Soren Nielsen / Siemens AG, "Tubular insert for a magnetic inductive flow meter." (Corresponds to CN 101103255 A and WO 2006/050744 A1.)
• Description (verified): A prefabricated tubular insert with a metal grid (perforated sheet) embedded in the insulating material, formed from two half shells whose butt edges run parallel to the tube axis and are welded. Lining material passes through the grid openings. An encircling strap/spacer sets a minimum gap to the measuring-tube wall.
• §102 relevance: This is the reference the specification itself identifies as a grid/perforated-sheet support "embedded in the liner without anchoring" to the support tube.
  • Claims 6–7: potentially anticipated (support body embedded in liner; perforated sheet).
  • Claim 1: does not disclose an inner-surface structure of the support tube preventing liner rotation → not anticipatory.
  • Note: the "butt edges parallel to the tube axis" is about the grid seam, not an anti-rotation groove — do not conflate with limitation (G).

1.4 DE 10 2006 018 415 B4 — Siemens

• Full citation: DE 102006018415 A1 (pub. 2007-10-25) / DE 102006018415 B4 (2008-01-10), Siemens AG, "Measuring tube for a magnetic inductive flowmeter." (Family cite.)
• Description (verified): A support body of two identical prefabricated half shells (manufacturable as perforated sheets), secured to the measuring tube terminally by weld pads; butt edges parallel to the tube axis.
• §102 relevance: The specification discusses this as the weld-pad alternative with the noted drawback of little space for cast liner and thermal-expansion weld failure.
  • Claim 6 (support body within the support tube) — potentially anticipatory.
  • Claim 1 — no anti-rotation inner-surface structure disclosed → not anticipatory.

1.5 US 5,280,727 A — Endress+Hauser Flowtec (Hafner et al.)

• Full citation: US 5,280,727 A, Endress+Hauser Flowtec AG, "Electromagnetic flow measuring tube and method of making same," pub. 1994-01-25 (priority 1987-09-11).
• Description (verified): A measuring tube built as a plastic inner member (tubular portion, integral flanges, electrode studs) with circumferential ribs on the OUTER surface of the tubular portion, subsequently coated with a lower-expansion, higher-strength outer member that stiffens it.
• §102 relevance: Discloses a measuring tube with liner and ribs, but the ribs are on the outer plastic member and serve stiffening — not an inner-surface anti-rotation structure. Relevant only as general background/§103 context; not anticipatory of claim 1.

1.6 US 5,773,723 A — Lewis ("Flow tube liner")

• Full citation: US 5,773,723 A, Lewis, Peter B., "Flow tube liner," pub. 1998-06-30 (priority 1995-09-29). (Family cite.)
• Description: A flow-tube liner of the perforated-sheet/anchoring type; it is the reference the patent identifies as showing a grid for liner support without anchoring of the support body to the support tube.
• §102 relevance: Claims 6–7 (support body / perforated grid) potentially; not claim 1.

1.7 DE 10 2013 114 284 A1 — the "internal thread + annular stop" reference — identifier flag

• Full citation: DE 102013114284 A1, priority 2013-12-18, pub. 2015-06-18 (family cite). The specification instead writes this as "DE 10 2013 11 444 284 A1" — a non-standard/duplicated-digit rendering that does not match the citation list. Per the operating rule, I interpret each identifier literally and do not auto-correct: the description's "DE 10 2013 11 444 284 A1" and the citation list's "DE102013114284A1" are treated as distinct strings, and the record also mislabels the A1 with the title "Fiber optic measuring device." This is a record inconsistency to flag, not to silently fix.
• Description (from the patent's own discussion): a measuring tube with an internal thread; terminal thread formations on a support body screw into it; twist prevention is provided by two sockets engaging terminally — i.e., an external annular stop, not part of the support tube.
• §102 relevance: The patent itself distinguishes this art: the internal thread "is not suitable for preventing a rotary movement of the liner"; rotation is blocked only by a stop external to the support tube. Good §102/§103 distinguishing art for claim 1 (element (E)), not anticipatory.

1.8 EP 1 039 269 A1 (sinter) and the applicant's own earlier filings

• The sintered-body approach (EP 1 039 269 A1, reflected in the record's EP 2012096 B1 / family cite) is described by the patent as an alternative anchor: sintered material flush in the support tube, open-pored, into which liner penetrates — praised for bonding but expensive/complex. Related US 7,823,461 (the "sinter skeleton" cross-flow sensor text) surfaced in searching.
• §102 relevance: Discloses a support body within a support tube with a liner-anchoring porous structure — arguably relevant to claims 6–7; it does not disclose a discrete axis-parallel anti-rotation groove in the support-tube inner surface (claim 1). The patent uses it as the cost/complexity contrast.

2. Full citation inventory (all references on the face of the patent)

Metadata below is taken directly from the patent's own citation tables. "†" = third-party (IDS) citation; otherwise examiner-cited. Every date shown pre-dates the 2015-05-07 priority except DE 10 2015 107 119 A1 (the applicant's own priority publication).

Family cites (4): US 5,773,723 A (Lewis); EP 2 012 096 B1 (Endress+Hauser Flowtec, MI flow-rate value transmitter, 1999-03-26); DE 10 2006 018 415 B4 (Siemens); DE 10 2013 114 284 A1 (the "internal thread" reference — see §1.7 identifier flag).

Non-patent citations (3): German Search Report (DPMA, 2016-01-18); International Search Report (EPO, 2016-07-21); Office Action (Chinese App. 2016-80026156.4, 2019-04-23). These are search/office documents, not prior-art publications.

Forward citation (1): US 12,031,852 B2 (Micro Motion, 2024-07-09) — a citation, not litigation (consistent with the earlier litigation summary).

3. §102 anticipation matrix (against the granted claims)

Bottom line on §102: Only DE 10 358 268 A1 realistically threatens independent claim 1 on a single-reference anticipation theory, and only conditionally on the axis-parallel-groove limitation. US 7,895,902 B2 is the reference most likely to be paired with an anti-rotation teaching for a §103 rejection, and the applicant's own DE 10 2013 114 428 A1 / WO 2015/090760 A1 family art is a natural §103 companion.

4. Flags and caveats (do not treat as legal conclusions)

1. Groove orientation is the crux. Claim 1's added limitation — "groove … extends parallel to a measuring tube axis" — is what separates this patent from the generic "anti-rotation structure" recitations (consistent with the earlier summary's note that this is the distinguishing element). My §102 conclusion turns entirely on whether the two leading references disclose an axis-parallel groove; that requires a figure-level read of DE 10 358 268 A1 and US 7,895,902 B2 rather than the text I verified.
2. Identifier irregularity preserved. The specification's "DE 10 2013 11 444 284 A1" does not match the citation-list entry DE 10 2013 114 284 A1 (family cite), and the record's title for that A1 ("Fiber optic measuring device") is incongruent with its described subject matter. I have not auto-corrected any of these per the operating rules.
3. Existing claim-drafting issue (carried forward, not re-analyzed). The earlier section flagged that claim 8 depends on claim 1 while reciting "said support body," whose antecedent lives in claim 6 — relevant here only because several references above are cited chiefly for the support-body limitation (claims 6–7), and a strict-literal reading of claim 8 could complicate how that art maps.
4. Source limitation. I did not query USPTO PatentCenter or the full IFW directly; the enumeration is the patent's own face-of-record citation list. I verified full text for DE 10 358 268 A1, US 7,895,902 B2/US 2009/0178489 A1, US 7,673,523 B2/US 2008/0196510 A1, DE 10 2006 018 415 B4, US 5,280,727 A, and US 6,817,249 B2; the remaining entries are summarized from the patent's own citation metadata and titles, and a rigorous §102 opinion on each would need the underlying documents.
5. No new art found. No prior-art reference was surfaced beyond those the patent itself lists — the "search" confirms the patent's own citation set rather than expanding it.

Confidence: high on the citation inventory and the identity/dates of the key references (taken from the authoritative record and verified full text); moderate on the §102 characterization of claims 1/14, which is explicitly conditioned on the axis-parallel-groove verification noted in flag 1.

I'll ground this § 103 analysis in the prior art listed on the patent's own record. Let me verify key reference disclosures first.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,620,024 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This section builds on the bibliographic, claim-mapping, and litigation sections already produced. It does not repeat them. Where the patent's own text creates an internal inconsistency, I flag it rather than silently resolve it.

1. Scope of the claims and the governing standard

Effective filing / critical date: The earliest priority is 2015‑05‑07 (DE 10 2015 107 119.3). Prior art must therefore predate that date. Every reference analyzed below is a publication of record on the patent's own Citations / Family Cites Families lists and qualifies as § 102(a)/(b) prior art.

Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). For this art I would define the POSITA as an engineer with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent) and roughly 3–5 years' experience designing magneto‑inductive flowmeters, including liner anchoring, metal‑tube forming (rolling, swaging, drawing), and flowtube assembly. This is the level against which the combinations below are judged (Graham v. John Deere; KSR Int'l v. Teleflex).

Key claim limitations to be met.

The independent claims 1 and 14 are broad. The only element that meaningfully narrows claim 1 beyond the bare concept of an anti‑rotation inner‑surface structure is the axis‑parallel groove orientation. That is where the § 103 inquiry concentrates.

2. The most material prior art on the record

2.1 DE 10 358 268 A1 — Endress + Hauser Process Solutions AG (priority 2003‑12‑11) — closest reference

This is the single most damaging item on the page, and it is the same corporate family as the patentee.

From the record's own abstract:

"Das Trägerrohr weist weiters wenigstens eine in eine Wand des Trägerrohrs eingeförmte, zum Lumen des Trägerrohrs hin offene erste Nut auf, wodurch einerseits die Neigung des Liners und/oder des ggf. vorhandenen Stützkörpers zu Rissbildungen bei Temperaturänderungen … erheblich verringert und andererseits ein Verdrehen oder Verschieben des Stützkörpers im Trägerrohr … wirksam verhindert werden kann."

Translated: the carrier tube has at least one groove formed into the wall of the carrier tube and open toward the lumen, which (a) reduces cracking of the liner/support body on cooling and (b) effectively prevents twisting (Verdrehen = rotation) or shifting (Verschieben) of the support body in the carrier tube.

This discloses, essentially verbatim, the functional heart of claim 1: a groove in the support‑tube wall that is expressly said to prevent rotation of the liner/support body. The wall‑formed "eingeförmte" groove also reads on the "formed integrally of the material of the support tube" limitation of claim 2, and the process of forming a groove into a tube wall implies a deformation step (claims 3). The US counterpart publication is US 2008/0053241 A1 ("Magnetically Inductive Cross‑Flow Sensor…"), which is on the record's related‑document family.

Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE10358268A1/en

2.2 US 7,895,902 B2 — Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba — supplies the axial-groove teaching

Title (as listed on the page): "Electromagnetic flow meter including circumferential grooves on an inner surface of a measurement pipe for fixing a liner." The specification and the record confirm:

• "Multiple grooves 3 … are provided in a circumferential direction on an inner surface of the measurement pipe," and resin in the grooves gives an "anchoring effect … to suppress detachment of the resin lining."
• Critically, in its Background, US 7,895,902 expressly acknowledges that axial grooves are already a known liner‑anchoring geometry:

"Japanese Examined Utility Model Application Publication No. 61‑16493 (Patent Document 3) discloses a technique to prevent detachment of a resin lining … dovetail grooves are formed on an inner surface of the measurement pipe either in a circumferential direction or in an axial direction, and the lining is formed by feeding resin thereafter."

So the Toshiba reference itself establishes that placing grooves oriented in the axial (longitudinal) direction on the inner surface of the measurement tube to anchor a liner was known before the '024 priority date.

Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7895902; Justia: https://patents.justia.com/patent/7895902

2.3 DE 10 2008 054 961 A1 — Endress + Hauser Flowtec AG (and its US counterpart US 2012/0096937 A1)

Discloses the perforated‑sheet support body held in the support tube by press‑fit — the very solution the '024 patent criticizes because "over longer periods of time, the compressive stress of the perforated sheet can lessen and the liner can turn (rotate) in the measuring tube." The US counterpart adds that an "essentially cylindrical, hollow body" (a perforated tube) can be joined to the support tube by mechanical deformation / rolling. This reference supplies the support‑body element and the deformation‑forming teaching.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120096937

2.4 US 5,773,723 A1 (Lewis) and US 2008/0196510 A1 (Nielsen) — support grid / perforated sheet embedded in the liner

The '024 specification itself concedes these show "a support body embodied as a perforated sheet or grid" that is "embedded in the liner without anchoring." These supply claims 6–7.

2.5 DE 10 2006 018 415 B4 — Siemens — two half‑shell support bodies welded to the measuring tube, and US 5,280,727 A (Endress + Hauser) — electromagnetic flow measuring tube and its manufacture

Both are on the record and show welded/anchored support bodies within the liner concept.

2.6 Deformation / swaging art

The record and the '024 specification both treat rotary swaging / cold deformation as the preferred method, and the assignee's own related art (e.g., the cold‑deformation measuring‑section reduction disclosed in the Endress+Hauser family and the rolling-join teaching of US 2012/0096937) confirms this was routine tube‑working knowledge. Machining (chip‑removing) alternatives and casting (lost‑wax) are also discussed.

2.7 The independent device claims — magnet system + electrodes

Every flowmeter reference on the record (US 7,895,902 B2; DE 10 358 268 A1; DE 10 2008 054 961 A1; US 2008/0053241 A1; US 5,280,727 A) discloses a measuring tube with a magnet system and a pair of measuring electrodes.

3. Claim‑by‑claim obviousness

Claim 1 — obvious

Combination I: DE 10 358 268 A1 in view of US 7,895,902 B2 (and its incorporated JP Utility Model 61‑16493 teaching).

• DE 10 358 268 A1 discloses a support ("carrier") tube with a liner and a groove formed into the tube wall, open to the lumen, that prevents rotation (Verdrehen) of the liner/support body — i.e., the "surface structure which prevents a rotary movement of the liner" and "at least one groove."
• US 7,895,902 B2 supplies the orientation limitation: its Background expressly recognizes inner‑surface axial grooves for anchoring a liner, and its own disclosure is directed to inner‑surface grooves for the same anchoring purpose.
• Motivation / reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the identical field (electromagnetic/magneto‑inductive flowmeters with a lined metal measurement tube) and address the identical problem (keeping the liner from moving relative to the tube). DE 10 358 268 A1 already states that a formed groove prevents rotation; the only remaining question is orientation, and a POSITA knows that an axial groove resists circumferential (rotational) slip, whereas a circumferential groove resists axial slip. Selecting the axial orientation to defeat rotation is the routine, predictable choice — precisely the "combination of familiar elements according to known methods … yielding predictable results" that KSR holds obvious. The claimed subject matter is the union of two known techniques with no unexpected result.

Even on DE 10 358 268 A1 alone, a strong prima facie case exists for the functional limitation; US 7,895,902/Toshiba cleanly closes the "parallel to the axis" gap.

Claim 2 — obvious

DE 10 358 268 A1's groove is "in eine Wand des Trägerrohrs eingeförmt" (formed into the wall), i.e., of the tube material; US 7,895,902's grooves are likewise formed on the measurement‑pipe inner surface. Integral formation is disclosed/rendered obvious.

Claims 3, 4, 13 — obvious

Deformation forming of the tube (rolling, cold working, and specifically swaging) is established tube‑working technique, expressly applied by the assignee's own art to join/make support components in a flowmeter tube (US 2012/0096937 A1). Once one accepts that a groove is to be formed in a metal tube wall, deformation — and cold‑working/swaging in particular — is an obvious, predictable method choice, especially given the art's expressed preference for avoiding material‑weakening machining. Claims 3→4→13 are a routine narrowing from "deformation" to "cold working" to "swaging."

Claim 5 — obvious

Symmetric encircling bulges that (a) act as an axial stop and (b) are wet by the liner material are conventional in flowtube construction; the record's E+H art (reduced measuring sections / outer‑contour forming) and US 2012/0096937's mechanically deformed hollow body wet/filled by liner material disclose the bulges/wetting concept. Forming the bulge(s) during the same tube‑forming operation is an obvious manufacturing economy.

Claims 6 and 7 — obvious

DE 10 2008 054 961 A1 (perforated sheet press‑fit), US 5,773,723 A1 (liner grid), US 2008/0196510 A1 (perforated sheet/grid in a support tube), and DE 10 2006 018 415 B4 (half‑shell support bodies) all disclose a support body inside the support tube formed of perforated sheet/grid/expanded metal. Notably, DE 10 358 268 A1 itself already recites a support body ("Stützkörper") embedded in the liner. Claims 6–7 are the well‑known support‑body architecture with nothing added.

Claims 8, 9, 10 — obvious

Forming the support body (perforated sheet) by deformation/cold working/swaging: US 2012/0096937 A1 expressly teaches a perforated‑tube support body joined by mechanical deformation/rolling. Drafting note: claim 8 depends from claim 1 yet recites "said support body," whose antecedent basis is actually supplied by claim 6 — a literal antecedent‑basis irregularity previously flagged; the substance, however, is still squarely met by the art.

Claims 11 and 12 — obvious

A plurality of grooves and their symmetric circumferential distribution are disclosed (US 7,895,902 "Multiple grooves"; DE 10 358 268 A1 "wenigstens eine … Nut" with plural contemplated). Spacing grooves symmetrically for uniform force distribution is exactly the "arrangement of parts … according to known methods" that is deemed a predictable design choice. No unexpected result.

Claim 14 — obvious

DE 10 358 268 A1 is itself a magneto‑inductive flow sensor having the support tube, liner, magnet system, and first and second measuring electrodes — i.e., all elements of claim 14. The added "parallel to axis" groove limitation is supplied by the US 7,895,902/Toshiba combination as in claim 1. Claim 14 adds nothing beyond the combination already established for claim 1 plus the admittedly conventional magnet system/electrode pair.

Claim 15 — obvious

A support body embedded in the liner is disclosed by DE 10 358 268 A1. A reduced cross section in the region of the measuring electrodes to condition flow/reduce inlet length is conventional flowmeter design and appears in the assignee's own cited art (DE 10 2013 114 428 A1; WO 2015/090760 A1). Combining the embedded support body with a measuring‑section taper is an obvious optimization for the stated flow‑conditioning benefit.

4. Motivation to combine — consolidated rationale

A POSITA would have combined these references because:

1. Same field of endeavor. All primary references are electromagnetic/magneto‑inductive flowmeters with a lined metal measurement/support tube (DE 10 358 268 A1; US 7,895,902 B2; DE 10 2008 054 961 A1; US 5,280,727 A). KSR makes analogous‑art combinations particularly appropriate.
2. Same problem, same solution mechanism. The problem — preventing the liner from moving (rotating or shifting) relative to the tube — is stated identically across the art. DE 10 358 268 A1 states the result (a wall‑formed groove prevents rotation) and US 7,895,902 states the geometry (inner‑surface grooves, including axial ones, anchor the liner). Combining them yields nothing more than their predictable aggregate.
3. Express lead in the lead reference. No hindsight is needed to import the anti‑rotation function: it is literally in the primary reference's abstract. The only open variable — groove orientation — is resolved by the express axial‑groove statement in US 7,895,902's background.
4. Reasonable expectation of success. The art is mature, mechanical, and predictable; forming a groove in a metal tube (by deformation/swaging) and letting liner material flow into it is disclosed to work. There is no unpredictability that would deter the POSITA.
5. Design incentives / cost. The references themselves motivate the substitution: DE 10 2008 054 961's press‑fit relaxes over time (the '024 patent says so), and the assignee's own swaging art touts cost and pressure‑stability advantages — supplying a rational motivation to prefer the deformation‑formed groove.

No teaching away. US 7,895,902's preference for circumferential/other groove shapes is a preference, not a disparagement of axial grooves — indeed the same document expressly lists axial grooves as known liner‑anchoring geometry. That is insufficient to establish teaching away.

5. Secondary considerations (objective indicia)

There is no evidence of record supporting non‑obviousness:

• No commercial‑success / nexus evidence is in the record. The specification asserts "high measuring sensitivity, low component weight and a cost effective and process safe manufacture," but these are attorney/spec assertions, not evidence with a demonstrated nexus to the claimed groove‑orientation feature.
• Long‑felt need cuts weakly, if at all. The problem (press‑fit relaxation → liner rotation) is stated in the assignee's own earlier art (DE 10 2008 054 961) and in the '024 background. A long‑known problem met by a known mechanical expedient (a groove, expressly rotation‑preventing in DE 10 358 268) supports obviousness rather than rebuts it.
• No unexpected results. Integrally swaging a longitudinal groove and a bulge in one operation is an asserted manufacturing convenience, not a surprising technical effect.
• Status. The patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (lapse effective 2024‑04‑14; see the earlier summary). There is no active enforcement or litigation to consult for secondary‑consideration evidence (consistent with the earlier litigation section).

6. Bottom line

Claims 1–15 of US 10,620,024 B2 would have been obvious under § 103 over the prior art on the patent's own record. The strongest single combination is:

DE 10 358 268 A1 (Endress+Hauser) — a support/carrier tube with a liner and a wall‑formed, lumen‑open groove that expressly prevents rotation of the liner/support body — in view of US 7,895,902 B2 (Toshiba), which anchors a liner with inner‑surface grooves and expressly recognizes axial inner‑surface grooves as known liner‑anchoring geometry.

That combination disposes of independent claim 1; the magnet system and electrodes of claim 14 are disclosed by DE 10 358 268 A1 itself; and the dependent claims recite well‑known support bodies (DE 10 2008 054 961 A1; US 5,773,723 A1; US 2008/0196510 A1), conventional deformation/swaging tube‑forming (US 2012/0096937 A1), and routine design choices (multiple, symmetrically distributed grooves; encircling bulges; measuring‑section taper) that add no patentable weight.

7. Caveats, confidence, and flagged discrepancies

• Confidence: high on the legal‑standard application and on the content of DE 10 358 268 A1 and US 7,895,902 B2, which I verified against the sources below. Confidence: moderate on the precise geometry of DE 10 358 268 A1's groove orientation — its abstract establishes the anti‑rotation function but, in the excerpt available to me, does not spell out that the groove runs parallel to the axis. That is precisely why the Toshiba reference (with its express axial‑dovetail‑groove recognition) is paired with it. If DE 10 358 268 A1's groove is helical or otherwise not strictly axis‑parallel, claim 1 is still obvious via the combination; it would not be anticipated by DE 10 358 268 A1 alone on that limitation alone.
• Literal‑reading discrepancy (do not auto‑correct). The '024 specification twice cites "DE 10 2013 11 444 284 A1" for the internal‑thread / screw‑thread twist‑prevention embodiment. The reference on the page with the closest number, DE 10 2013 114 284 A1, is titled "Fiber optic measuring device" (Hochschule Niederrhein) and concerns an optical luminescence sensor — unrelated to flowmeter measuring tubes. The specification's characterization therefore does not match the like‑numbered cited document. The E+H measuring‑tube art that actually resembles the described internal‑thread embodiment is DE 10 2013 114 428 A1 / WO 2015/090760 A1. I report this as a literal‑identifier mismatch, not a correction.
• Previously flagged issues still stand: the claim‑8 antecedent‑basis irregularity ("said support body" depending from claim 1), and the specification's cross‑reference to "claim 10" where the granted independent device claim is claim 14.
• Search scope. This analysis is confined to the references listed in the patent page's Prior Art / Citations section, per the task. Adjacent same‑assignee documents that surfaced incidentally (e.g., US 2016/0313154 A1 / US 10,488,234 B2 describing a "helically shaped contour … [for] twist prevention of the liner") are not on the page's citation list and I have therefore not relied on them; they are noted only as potentially even more directly on‑point art if a fuller prior‑art search were run.

Sources verified for this section

• DE 10 358 268 A1 — https://patents.google.com/patent/DE10358268A1/en
• US 7,895,902 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US7895902 ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/7895902
• US 2012/0096937 A1 (US counterpart of DE 10 2008 054 961 A1) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120096937
• DE 10 2013 114 284 A1 ("Fiber optic measuring device") — https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102013114284A1/en
• Subject patent — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10620024/en