US 10738508

I'll search for this specific patent number to check for any USPTO records and CAFC docket activity.

Let me run a couple more targeted searches for USPTO records and any litigation/docket activity.

Let me try to pull the actual claim set for this patent to verify the independent claims.

US 10,738,508 B2 — Anti-Theft Device for Portable Electronic Device

Sourcing note: The bibliographic data and specification text below are drawn from the authoritative full patent text supplied for this task (Google Patents, US10738508B2, fetched 2026-09-30). Web searches were run against the patent number and for litigation/docket activity. I flag uncertainties explicitly.

Bibliographic data (from the patent text)

Continuity chain (from the "Cross Reference to Related Applications" section): The '508 is a continuation of Ser. No. 15/977,401 (now US 10,227,796), which is a continuation of Ser. No. 15/392,598 (now US 9,970,217), which is a continuation of Ser. No. 14/300,476 (now US 9,567,776), a non-provisional claiming priority to four provisionals: 61/833,655 (Jun 11, 2013), 61/846,806 (Jul 16, 2013), 61/889,212 (Oct 10, 2013), and 61/899,398 (Nov 4, 2013).

Related continuations also noted in the record: US 11,293,202; US 11,753,852; US 12,264,510; US 12,460,451.

Abstract (verbatim)

"An anti-theft device for protecting a portable electronic device from theft or unauthorized removal in a retail environment is provided. A shroud may at least partially enclose a portable electronic device. A dock may releasably engage the shroud such that the shroud and portable electronic device are locked to the dock when engaged with the dock. A key may engage activate a lock mechanism to release the shroud and the portable electronic device from the dock."

What the invention is about (plain-language)

The patent covers security hardware for retail/workplace tablet-style devices. The device sits inside a shroud (a protective/security shell that can include a handle). The shroud drops onto a dock that is fixed to a counter or fixture. The dock has spring-biased fingers that automatically snap into a groove/slot in the shroud handle to lock it in place, so the tablet cannot simply be lifted off. An authorized user releases it with a mechanical key (rotates a cam that retracts the fingers against their spring bias) or an electronic key (signals a motor-driven cam to retract the fingers). The dock can also alarm on unauthorized separation, and can pass charging power to the tablet through a flexible cable/ribbon in the shroud that contacts corresponding pads on the dock (which can also form a sense loop).

Independent claims — plain-language overview

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: The claim set itself was not present in the fetched patent text (the retrieved copy truncates in the Detailed Description). The independent-claim summaries below are reconstructed from the "Summary of the Invention" section, which tracks the claim language, and the abstract. I could not independently verify the exact claim numbering/boundaries. Treat claim numbers as provisional.

1. Anti-theft device — sensor + location logic (device claim). An anti-theft device with a sensor operably coupled to the portable electronic device. The sensor generates a security signal when (a) the sensor is removed from the device, and (b) based on a location of the device relative to an authorized device, location, or perimeter. The sensor may be integrated into or attached to the device, and the device may include a shroud and a wirelessly paired key the device must stay within a predetermined distance of.

2. Anti-theft device — shroud-mounted sensor (device claim). A shroud that at least partially encloses the device plus a sensor operably engaged with the shroud, generating a security signal when the sensor is removed from the shroud and/or the shroud is removed from the device, and based on device location relative to an authorized device, location, or perimeter.

3. Method — arming a coupled sensor. Coupling a sensor to a portable electronic device and arming it, such that the sensor generates a security signal when removed from the device and based on the device's location relative to an authorized device, location, or perimeter. Optional steps: enclosing the device with a shroud; defining an authorized perimeter using the device.

4. Method — location detection. Detecting the location of the device (or its sensor) and generating a security signal based on location relative to an authorized device/location/perimeter. Optional steps listed include generating a signal when the sensor is removed, detecting a light-level change while moving for a predetermined time, detecting displacement relative to a paired key, signaling outside or inside an authorized perimeter, and wirelessly communicating the signal to a remote location.

5. Anti-theft device — shroud + dock + retractable finger (device claim; core of the commercial embodiment). A shroud at least partially enclosing the device and a dock that releasably engages the shroud so the shroud and device are locked to the dock when engaged. The dock includes at least one finger that extends and retracts to engage and disengage the shroud. Associated features: handle with a groove that the finger engages; finger automatically engaging when the shroud is placed on the dock; flexible cable in the shroud carrying power to the device via contacts; dock contacts for contact charging; mechanical key lock and/or electro-mechanical (motor/cam/switch) lock; and/or a sensor in the shroud.

6. Anti-theft device — handle + arms + dock (device claim). A handle and a plurality of arms that releasably engage both the handle and the portable electronic device, plus a dock that releasably engages the handle to lock the handle and device to the dock (dock has at least one extending/retracting finger). Notably, the device can be disengaged from the dock while the arms remain engaged with the device — i.e., the arms form a carry frame that does not interfere with docking/undocking.

7. Method — shroud/dock locking. Coupling a shroud to a portable electronic device and releasably engaging the shroud with a dock such that the shroud and device are locked to the dock, the dock having at least one finger that extends/retracts to engage/disengage the shroud. Optional steps: at least partially enclosing the device with the shroud; arming the dock to generate an audible/visible alarm if the shroud is separated from the dock in an unauthorized manner.

USPTO / CAFC docket check

• USPTO records: The patent's own front-matter and the Google Patents record confirm the bibliographic data above. An assignment to InVue Security Products Inc. was recorded 2019-09-17 (assignors: Moock, Fawcett, Grant, Kerley, Sedon), consistent with the inventor list.
• CAFC 2026 dockets: My searches did not return any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2026 docket entry specifically identifying US 10,738,508. I therefore cannot confirm that the '508 patent is, or is not, the subject of a pending CAFC appeal. I am flagging this as an unresolved item rather than asserting either way.
• Related (non-authoritative, does not name the '508): Searches surfaced InVue enforcement activity — e.g., InVue Security Products Inc. v. Vanguard Products Group Inc., No. 8:26-cv-02536 (D. Md., filed 2026) and InVue Security Products Inc. v. Indyme Solutions LLC, No. 1:26-cv-00766 (D. Del.) — plus an older Federal Circuit appeal, InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., No. 18-2202 (patents-in-suit were the '787 and '954 patents, not the '508). None of these results confirmed the '508 as an asserted patent or as the subject of a 2026 CAFC docket. Given the strict no-auto-correction rule, I am not equating these cases with the '508.

Bottom line

US 10,738,508 is an InVue continuation patent (filed 2019-02-18, issued 2020-08-11, 2013 priority) directed to shroud-and-dock anti-theft hardware with automatically engaging locking fingers and keyed release for tablets and similar portable electronics, with independent claims also covering sensor-based removal and location/perimeter monitoring. Authoritative claim text was not in the fetched copy, so the independent-claim numbering above should be verified against the official USPTO/Google Patents claim listing before being relied on, and no 2026 CAFC docket activity tied specifically to this patent number was confirmed by my searches.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 10738508 across patent litigation databases and court records.

Let me search patent litigation databases more specifically.

Let me check specific litigation databases and the patent's related family.

Based on my searches of patent litigation resources (Unified Patents portal, PACER-derived dockets, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia Dockets, Stanford NPE litigation database, RPX Insight, and PTAB records), here is what I found regarding US Patent No. 10,738,508.

Bottom line

I found no litigation that specifically asserts US Patent No. 10,738,508 ("the '508 patent") as a patent-in-suit. I could not locate any district court complaint, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding naming the '508 patent as the challenged or asserted patent. I want to be explicit that this is a negative finding from the sources I could reach, not a certification that no such case exists.

Why confidence is limited

• The '508 patent issued August 11, 2020 (a continuation in the InVue tablet-security family). Because it issued relatively recently, any assertion would have to post-date mid-2020.
• Your requested databases (Unified Patents portal, PACER) are not fully indexable via the search tools available here; I hit tool limits before exhausting every docket. A definitive answer should be confirmed directly on the Unified Patents litigation case list, PACER, and Docket Navigator for the patent number.

Closely related InVue litigation (for context — none of these name the '508 patent)

InVue Security Products Inc. (current owner of the '508 patent; now under Assa Abloy Global Solutions, Inc.) has a substantial litigation history, but the asserted patents I found are different patents:

Important caveat on the Vanguard case

The most recent InVue assertion I found — InVue v. Vanguard Products Group, M.D. Fla. 8:26-cv-02536, filed Aug. 28, 2026 (PACER Monitor: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66517577/) — asserts US 12,428,878 and US 12,460,451, not the '508 patent. Both of those patents are continuations in the same family as the '508 patent (the '508 patent's Google Patents page shows priority-chain links to US 11,293,202; 11,753,852; 12,264,510; and 12,460,451). So the same technology family is being actively litigated, but the '508 patent itself does not appear to have been asserted in that case.

Recommendation

To definitively confirm whether the '508 patent has ever been asserted, I'd suggest checking these directly (which I was unable to fully query here):

1. Unified Patents litigation search — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation (search the exact number "10738508")
2. USPTO Patent Center / PTAB — for any IPR/PGR challenging the '508 patent
3. PACER / Docket Navigator / Lex Machina — full-text search of complaints for "10,738,508"
4. Google Patents "Litigation" tab for US10738508 (where available)

If you'd like, I can draft a formal freedom-to-operate/litigation clearance note reflecting this negative finding and flagging the related-family cases above.

I'll verify the structured data with targeted searches before concluding.

Let me check specifically for any AIA trial on the '508 patent and for the Mobile Tech / InVue docket.

Let me pull the Unified Patents PTAB caselist for InVue to confirm whether the '508 patent appears anywhere.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,738,508: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding against this patent, and independent searching (Unified Patents' PTAB case list filtered to Patent Owner InVue Security Products Inc., Google Patents' litigation/PTAB tabs for US10738508B2, and CourtListener) surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal naming U.S. Patent No. 10,738,508 in any AIA trial. Breakdown by status is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "hardened patent" and not "claims canceled" — it is untested: every claim of the '508 is presumptively valid, wholly un-narrowed by the Board, and no petitioner estoppel exists against anyone.

I want to be explicit about the constraint I'm operating under: I found no proceeding to report claim-level outcomes for, and I will not manufacture one. The sections below therefore contain a verification record and adjacent-family context instead of the per-proceeding blocks.

No-proceeding verification (canonical source + search confirmation)

• Canonical structured data (USPTO ODP, as ingested): no AIA trial proceedings for US 10,738,508. Status: no PTAB activity on file.
• Search confirmation: Unified Patents' PTAB case list for InVue Security Products Inc. — portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist?patent_owners=InVue+Security+Products+Inc — lists roughly two dozen InVue-owned proceedings covering patents 9,830,787; 10,055,954; 9,805,564; 10,043,358; 9,747,765; 9,972,178; 10,098,481; 10,008,082; 10,062,266; 10,062,253; 9,818,274; 9,659,472; 9,576,452, among others. 10,738,508 does not appear.
• Search cross-check: queries for "10,738,508" / "10738508" combined with IPR, PGR, Petition, Mobile Tech, and InVue returned only the patent's own Google Patents page (patents.google.com/patent/US10738508B2/en), an unrelated FEC filing that happens to carry transaction ID 10738508, and patent-owner-page listings. No petition documents.
• One item I could not resolve, flagged rather than asserted: PGR2019-00019 appears in a Mobile Tech/InVue exhibit list (referencing InVue's answers filed in the California and North Carolina litigations). I could not confirm which InVue patent PGR2019-00019 targets, but nothing in the record ties it to the '508 — which in any event did not issue until 2020-08-11, well outside that petition's 2018 timeframe. Treat as not a '508 proceeding.

Adjacent-family context (not '508 proceedings — included only as pattern evidence)

The '508 sits in a continuation chain that has been PTAB-litigated heavily throughout InVue's sibling patent families, chiefly by Mobile Tech, Inc. ("MTI") and Vanguard Products Group:

• IPR2016-00895/-00896/-00898/-00899 (MTI) — InVue patents 9,135,800 and 9,269,247; claims held unpatentable; InVue's appeals affirmed at InVue Security Prods. Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., Nos. 2018-1236/-1238/-1239/-1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019-03-08) (R. 36 judgment) — courtlistener.com/opinion/4598031.
• IPR2016-00892 (MTI) — U.S. 8,884,762; FWD of 2017-09-28 held claims 1–27 unpatentable.
• IPR2016-01915; IPR2017-00344/-00345 (MTI) — U.S. 7,737,844 and 9,396,631; InVue's RPI-based termination motions denied.
• IPR2020-00104/-00105 (MTI) — 10,055,954 and 9,830,787; not instituted on the merits (2020-05-07). These arose from InVue v. Mobile Tech, 3:19-cv-00407 (D. Or.).
• IPR2020-00018/-00032/-00048/-00066/-00069 (Vanguard Products Group) — five petitions, four of which settled/terminated 2020-07-08.
• IPR2018-00481; IPR2018-01138; PGR2018-00004 — other InVue patents, mixed outcomes.

Every one of these is against a different patent number. None of them carries estoppel consequences for the '508.

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '508: every claim is UNTESTED. No claim of US 10,738,508 has been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the Board, because no AIA trial has ever been instituted against it. There is no surviving-claim list to give you and no "dead claim" to attack. The patent issued 2020-08-11 from application 16/278,295 (filed 2019-02-18), the last of a chain: 14/300,476 → US 9,567,776; 15/392,598 → US 9,970,217; 15/977,401 → US 10,227,796; then the '508. Family continuations continue to issue — US 11,293,202 (from 16/932,055), US 11,753,852 (from 17/712,702), US 12,264,510 (from 18/230,427), and US 12,460,451 (from 19/079,986) — which matters more than the '508 itself, for the reason in the next paragraph.

Estoppel landscape: the field is completely open. Because no petition has ever been filed against the '508, no one is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel as to this patent. MTI's prior IPR work was done on different patents ('800, '247, '762, '631, '844, '787, '954), so it did not generate § 315(e) estoppel on the '508's claims, and InVue's successful defense of the '787 and '954 petitions at the institution stage does not insulate the '508 either. Practically, a defendant today can raise any § 102/§ 103 ground, on any prior art, in an IPR against the '508 — subject only to the § 315(b) one-year bar. That is a materially better position than defendants usually occupy against a continuation-heavy InVue family.

Pattern signals. (1) The '508's issuance timing is the story. It issued mid-litigation in the long-running InVue–MTI campaign, and the one petitioner with demonstrated appetite, funding, and deep technical knowledge of these exact devices (MTI filed at least nine InVue IPRs) never challenged it. That is weak evidence of thin art, and possible evidence that the claims were drafted deliberately around the Belden/Rothbaum/Denison art that defeated the sibling '762, '800, and '247 patents. (2) InVue is an operating company, not an NPE and not a defensive-aggregator target — there is no Unified Patents proceeding in this chain, which is consistent with the company's practice of enforcing against direct competitors rather than a broad licensing campaign. (3) InVue has shown it will both defend at the Board (institution-stage wins in IPR2020-00104/-00105) and appeal adverse outcomes to the Federal Circuit (2018-1236 et al., affirmed), so expect a contested fight rather than a walkover. (4) The open question the record cannot answer is whether the '508 or its continuations have been asserted in any litigation; the searches surfaced the '787/'954 Oregon case and the earlier MTI suits but no complaint pleading the '508.

Recommended next steps

• There is no FWD to link, no disposition to quote, and no claim-level victory to rely on. If you are a defendant, do not build an invalidity narrative on PTAB outcomes for this patent — they do not exist. Any representation by opposing counsel that the '508 has "already survived IPRs" should be tested; likewise, no one can tell you claims have been canceled.
• Run the § 315(b) clock immediately. The one-year bar runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent. Given the '508 issued 2020-08-11, a complaint served on or after that date starts the clock. If you were served more than one year ago and are now in court, IPR may be time-barred and you are looking at an ex parte reexamination or a § 112/§ 101 district-court challenge instead.
• PGR and CBM are both off the table — the PGR nine-month window closed around 2021-05-11, and CBM review sunset on 2020-09-16. IPR is the only AIA vehicle available for this patent.
• Prior-art dating is the crux. The '508's priority date is 2013-06-11, with three provisionals behind it (61/833,655; 61/846,806; 61/889,212; 61/899,398). Any § 102/§ 103 theory must clear the earliest of those dates for the specific subject matter relied upon, and given the continuation chain, expect InVue to argue derivation of every limitation from the 2013 provisionals. The art that killed the sibling '762 patent (Belden, US 2007/0159328; Rothbaum, US 5,543,782; Denison, US 2004/0201449; Sedon, US 2005/0073413; Ott, US 6,380,855) is the natural starting point for a § 103 combination aimed at the dock/finger/electro-mechanical-lock and flexible-cable-charging claims — but it has never been tested against these particular claims.
• Treat the family, not the patent. With US 11,293,202, 11,753,852, 12,264,510, and 12,460,451 all issuing from the same disclosure and priority date, a piecemeal IPR against the '508 alone is likely to be followed by assertion of a sibling. Budget for a family-level § 102/§ 103 strategy, and check each sibling's own PTAB history before deciding where to file.
• Absence of PTAB activity is itself a signal, and here it cuts against a quick Board win. InVue is an operating company that has asserted these patents against a direct competitor for over a decade; the competitor filed IPRs against nearly every patent InVue asserted except this one. That asymmetry suggests the '508's claims were drafted with the known art in mind, so weigh a district-court invalidity case, including § 112 enablement/written-description attacks on the broad continuations, alongside any petition.

Sources consulted: USPTO ODP structured block (canonical); portal.unifiedpatents.com PTAB case list — InVue Security Products Inc.; US10738508B2 on Google Patents; InVue v. Mobile Tech, Nos. 2018-1236 et al. (Fed. Cir. 2019-03-08) on CourtListener; IPR2016-00892 FWD, 2017-09-28; InVue v. Mobile Tech, 3:19-cv-00407 (D. Or.) Opinion & Order on CourtListener. USPTO PTAB E2E for docket-level verification: ptacts.uspto.gov.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10738508. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the assignment records and company/litigation background.

Let me look for the specific assignment record and any later transfers or litigation.

I was able to pull substantial data, but I could not retrieve the exact reel/frame numbers for this patent's assignment record, so I flag that explicitly rather than invent values.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 10,738,508 B2

Patent: Anti-theft device for portable electronic device
App. No.: 16/278,295 · Filed: 2019-02-18 · Granted: 2020-08-11
Priority: 2013-06-11 (provisional 61/833,655)

Data caveat up front: The USPTO Assignment Center / Assignments-on-the-Web value for this patent could not be retrieved in this session (the search endpoints returned no directly-renderable patent-level record). What is confirmed is Google Patents' legal-events mirror, which records exactly one post-filing assignment event for this patent. I therefore report the conveyance as verified but the reel/frame number and executed date as unverified, and I say so rather than manufacture a citation. Verify at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 10738508).

Inventors

Pattern notes: All five inventors are consistent with InVue's in-house engineering team; the same five names recur across the whole continuation family (US 9,567,776 → US 9,970,217 → US 10,227,796 → US 10,738,508 → US 11,293,202 → US 11,753,852 → US 12,264,510 → US 12,460,451). This is the inverse of the "mass inventor departure precedes fire-sale" tell: the inventor roster is stable across roughly a decade of continuations, and Grant/Fawcett/Kerley continue to appear as assignors on InVue filings through at least 2024 — consistent with retained employees, not a decapitalized portfolio.

(One conflicting public datum: Mergr lists InVue's founding as 1972 while InVue's own press release says 1986. Noted but immaterial to ownership.)

Original assignee

InVue Security Products Inc. — 15015 Lancaster Highway / 9201 Baybrook Lane, Charlotte, NC 28277. Assignee on the face of the patent (App. No. 16/278,295, filed 2019-02-18).

• Ships a product embodying the claims? Yes. InVue is a global manufacturer of retail asset-protection hardware — sensor tethers, recoilers, alarming power cords, and the OneKEY electronic-key platform. The patent's claims (shroud + dock + extendable/retractable fingers + key-actuated lock mechanism) describe its commercial docking / display-security line, not a paper right.
• Primary line of business: Precision-engineered connected asset protection and access control for retail (founded 1986; ~260 employees; 2024 sales ≈ USD 165M).
• Current status: Operating, and now a subsidiary. ASSA ABLOY AB announced acquisition of InVue on 2025-01-24. This reads as an equity/share purchase, so the USPTO assignee of record most likely remains InVue Security Products Inc. as an ASSA ABLOY subsidiary; I found no recorded InVue → ASSA ABLOY patent assignment. (Unverified — confirm on Assignment Center.)
• Litigation posture (relevant to the verdict): InVue is an asserting operating company. It sued competitor Mobile Tech, Inc. (MTI) in D. Or. (3:19-cv-00407) on U.S. 9,830,787 and 10,055,954, and defended its patents in IPR2016-01915, IPR2020-00105 and related MTI proceedings. Note the '508 patent was not among the asserted patents in the MTI case I located.

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment event is recorded against US 10,738,508.

• Executed date: unverified (not retrievable this session; by family practice likely contemporaneous with the 2014-06-10 parent filing) / recorded 2019-09-17 — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (unverified; not retrieved)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (the original inventor → company assignment)
  • Assignor: MOOCK, ANDREW W.; FAWCETT, CHRISTOPHER J.; GRANT, JEFFREY A.; KERLEY, MATTHEW THOMAS; SEDON, NICHOLAS M. (all five joint inventors)
  • Assignee: InVue Security Products Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not verified for this patent. For a sibling InVue application (App. 16/274,538, "Alarming Cables, Assemblies, And Systems") recorded at Reel 48572/419, executed May 2014, recorded 2019-03-12, the correspondent of record was InVue Security Products Inc., 9201 Baybrook Lane, Charlotte, NC 28277 — i.e., the operating company files its own assignment paperwork in-house rather than through outside NPE counsel. That is a useful (but adjacent-record) tell.
  • Context: Internal/employment acquisition of title by the operating company — not a fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

No subsequent assignments are recorded. No transfer to any IP-holding LLC, no security agreement, no change of name, no release. As of the fetched record, title sits with the original operating assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10738508
    2013 : Priority date
    2014 : Parent application filed
    2019 : Continuation filed
         : Inventor assignment recorded to InVue
    2020 : Patent issued
    2025 : InVue acquired by ASSA ABLOY

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The sole recorded conveyance is inventor → InVue Security Products Inc., an operating manufacturer at a real corporate address. No "IP / Holdings / Licensing" LLC anywhere in the chain.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. InVue Security Products Inc. does not appear on the Acacia / Marathon / IV / IPNav / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Round Rock / MPHJ / Lumen View / Spangenberg rosters, nor is it surfaced by Unified Patents or RPX as a high-frequency plaintiff. It is a defendant-side familiar name (IPR Patent Owner), not an NPE plaintiff.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present / unclear. There is only one assignment in this chain, so recurrence cannot arise. The adjacent InVue record (Reel 48572/419) shows self-correspondence by InVue in-house at 9201 Baybrook Lane — the opposite of an anonymous NPE filing through a single repeat outside attorney.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. One assignment, not a chain of LLC transfers within 24 months; nothing shares a common registered-agent address.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The 2019-09-17 recording is an inventor-to-company title-cleanup, not a transfer to an asserter. The one InVue enforcement I found (3:19-cv-00407 v. MTI) asserted different patents ('787 and '954), so the '508 chain was not arranged around that suit. Note the recording does fall in 2019, the same year as the MTI filing, but the assignor/assignee pair (inventors → original company) is inconsistent with an assertion-enabling transfer.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 of InVue; the parent-ending event is a going-concern acquisition by ASSA ABLOY.
7. Privateering — not present. InVue asserts its own patents against a direct competitor in its own market; there is no operating-company-to-NPE hand-off and no evidence of one in SEC or press coverage.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. ASSA ABLOY is an operating strategic acquirer, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the only recorded conveyance on US 10,738,508 is the five named inventors assigning to InVue Security Products Inc., recorded 2019-09-17, with no downstream transfer to any licensing vehicle (the reel/frame for this specific recording was not retrievable this session and should be confirmed against Assignment Center). InVue is a ~260-employee manufacturer whose products practice the claims, it enforces its patent family against a direct competitor (MTI, D. Or. 3:19-cv-00407), and it filed its own assignments in-house — the antithesis of an anonymous, product-free NPE chain. The only structural event is the 2025-01-24 acquisition of InVue by ASSA ABLOY, a strategic operating acquirer, which leaves the asserting operating company (now a subsidiary) in place.

Verify: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html → search 10738508; also confirm whether the Jan-2025 ASSA ABLOY deal generated any recorded InVue → ASSA ABLOY assignment (I found none).

I'll research US Patent 10738508 and its prior-art citations. Let me begin with targeted searches.

Let me search for the specific reference citations on the patent's front page and the USPTO PatentCenter record.

Let me search for the citation lists on patent databases that display front-page references and forward citations.

Important search-integrity note first

I ran multiple searches against Google Patents, USPTO PatentCenter, FreePatentsOnline, and secondary databases. I was able to confirm the bibliographic identity of the patent, but I was not able to retrieve the actual front‑page "References Cited"/"Cited By" list (the examiner‑cited U.S. and foreign patent documents) for US 10,738,508 before my search budget was exhausted. I will not fabricate citations, dates, or §102 mappings. Below I separate (A) what I verified, (B) the references that are verifiably tied to this patent from the document itself, and (C) an honest statement about what remains unretrieved — with the exact places to pull the definitive list.

A. Patent identification (verified, interpreted literally)

• Number as issued: US 10,738,508 B2 (literal identifier "10738508")
• Title: Anti-theft device for portable electronic device
• Assignee: InVue Security Products Inc.
• Application: US 16/278,295, filed 2019‑02‑18
• Grant date: 2020‑08‑11
• Priority date: 2013‑06‑11 (claimed via provisional 61/833,655; 61/846,806; 61/889,212; 61/899,398)
• Anticipated expiration: ~2034‑06‑10
• Inventors: Andrew W. Moock; Jeffrey A. Grant; Christopher J. Fawcett; Nicholas M. Sedon; Matthew Thomas Kerley
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10738508/en

Continuation chain (from the "CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" in the specification itself):
15/977,401 (now 10,227,796) ← 15/392,598 (now 9,970,217) ← 14/300,476 (now 9,567,776), which claims priority to the four provisionals above. Later continuations off 16/278,295 include 16/932,055 (now 11,293,202), 17/712,702 (now 11,753,852), 18/230,427 (now 12,264,510), and 19/079,986 (now 12,460,451). The published application corresponding to this disclosure is US 2014/0362517 A1 (and US 2019/0178010 A1). The EP counterpart is EP 3 008 542 B1.

Because 10,738,508 has an effective filing date of 2013‑06‑11, its own continuation-family members and the parent (9,567,776) are not prior art against it (same inventors/assignee), but the sibling InVue filings and third‑party documents dated before 2013‑06‑11 are the operative §102 art.

B. References verifiably tied to this patent (from the specification text itself)

The specification expressly incorporates two documents by reference. These are the only references I can confirm verbatim from the authoritative text supplied, and they are cited as background/teaching sources, not necessarily as examiner §102 art:

Claim-1‑style subject matter of 10,738,508 (per the summary and the EP counterpart claims) is the shroud + dock + at least one finger 42 (extend/retract, automatically engaging) + flexible cable for power/charging + mechanical/electrical lock disengaged by a key. Neither of the two incorporated references above appears to teach the spring‑biased docking finger engaging a handle groove or the flexible ribbon cable with dock contacts, so on the text available they would map to dependent/summary claim features, not to independent claim 1.

C. What I could NOT retrieve (do not treat as authoritative)

The following were targets of my searches but were not successfully retrieved, so I have no verified data for them:

1. The front-page "References Cited" list (examiner‑cited U.S. patent documents, foreign patent documents, and non‑patent literature) for 10,738,508.
2. The "Cited By" / forward‑citation list for 10,738,508.
3. The specific examiner and art‑unit citations that would form the true §102/§103 record.

One search surfaced a third‑party document (a Patent Trial and Appeal Board petition paper) discussing prior art such as Skedung, Soma, and a patent identified as U.S. Pat. No. 9,399,531 B2, but that proceeding concerns a different patent ("'431 Patent") and is not the citation record of 10,738,508 — I am excluding it as irrelevant rather than mis‑attributing it.

D. Where to obtain the definitive citation list (recommended next steps)

To complete the requested reference‑by‑reference §102 mapping with verified data, pull the record from:

• USPTO PatentCenter — application 16/278,295 (PatentCenter shows the examiner‑cited references and the Form PTO‑892 / IDS). URL pattern: patentcenter.uspto.gov
• Google Patents → US10738508B2 → "Citations" / "Cited By" tabs (the page's machine‑readable citation graph lists "Patent Citations" and "Cited By" with dates).
• FreePatentsOnline / Espacenet / Global Dossier — for the "References Cited" block and family citations.

If you paste the front‑page reference list (or let me re‑run the search), I will produce the exact table you requested: full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and the specific claim(s) each reference potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. §102 — with the standard caveat that anticipation requires every element of a claim in a single reference, so most examiner citations in this art are typically §103 combinations rather than pure §102 anticipation.

Honest bottom line: I verified the patent's identity, dates, family, and its two self‑cited incorporated references, and identified US 2012/0293330 as the most material pre‑priority reference for the location/perimeter claims. I could not verify the examiner‑cited prior‑art list for 10,738,508 in this session, so I am deliberately not inventing citations, dates, or §102 claim mappings.

I'll research the prior art cited for this patent before building the obviousness analysis.

Let me look specifically for the references cited on the patent's face and the related family documents.

Let me pull the actual citation list from the patent's Google Patents page and related family.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Pat. No. 10,738,508 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

0. Important scope/limitations note (read first)

Two things materially constrain the rigor of this analysis, and I want to flag them rather than paper over them:

1. The patent text supplied to me did not include a "Prior Art" / "References Cited" listing. The document I received is the full description, abstract, classifications and family data, but the citation table (the "Patent Citations"/"Non-Patent Citations" section that normally appears on the Google Patents page at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10738508](/patent/US10738508)/en) was not present in the fetched content. I attempted to retrieve it via search; the searches returned only partial citation sets from sibling family members and from related patents, not the '508 list itself. The references below are those I could actually confirm appear in the citation sets of this patent family or its siblings, plus the two documents the '508 specification expressly incorporates by reference. I could not verify the complete and exact list, so this analysis should be treated as a §103 framework keyed to confirmed references, not a verbatim claim-chart against the official PTO citation list.

2. The '508 claims themselves were not included in the fetched text. The description/SUMMARY is available and is detailed, so I have reconstructed the claim concepts from it (shroud + dock + finger + flexible charging cable; mechanical vs. electro-mechanical lock; handle + arms; method claims). I am labeling this a "representative independent claim" analysis rather than a claim-by-claim chart, because I could not confirm the literal claim language.

3. Critical date caveat. The '508 patent is a continuation of Ser. No. 15/977,401 → 15/392,598 → 14/300,476 (filed 2014‑06‑10), which claims benefit of provisionals filed 2013‑06‑11, 2013‑07‑16, 2013‑10‑10 and 2013‑11‑04 (see CROSS REFERENCE section). The effective priority date is therefore 11 June 2013. That means a large share of the documents that appear in the family's citation lists — e.g., US 2016/0004886 A1 (InVue, pub. 2016‑01‑07), WO 2015/150729 A3 (Spotspot, pub. 2015‑10‑08), US 2016/0007487 A1 / US 9,575,506 B2 (Aba Ufo, pub. 2016‑01‑07 / granted 2017‑02‑21), US 2014/0324608 A1 (Partner Tech, pub. 2014‑10‑30), US 2018/0279805 A1 (Compucage, pub. 2018‑10‑04) — post-date the priority date and are not available as §102(a)(1)/§102(b) prior art unless they independently qualify under §102(a)(2)/§102(e) via an earlier effective filing date. Several of these are applicant's-own later publications and are more properly "cited for completeness" than as §103 art. I therefore weight the analysis toward references that predate 11 June 2013, plus the two incorporated documents.

1. The claim concepts to be tested

Reading the SUMMARY and DETAILED DESCRIPTION, the '508 disclosure is directed to securing a tablet-class device in a retail/point-of-sale setting, and the claim concepts resolve into four groups:

2. Confirmed references available for combination

(i) Pre‑2013‑06‑11 art (usable in §103):

• US 2012/0317779 A1 → US 8,418,514 B2 — ACCO Brands, "Protective case for physically securing a portable electronic device" / "Tablet protector" (pub. 2012‑12‑20). Confirmed present in the '508 citation set (appears on the US 8,418,514 family page alongside this patent). Teaches a protective case (shroud) that physically secures a tablet in a retail setting.
• US 2012/0293330 A1 — "Systems and Methods for Protecting Retail Display Merchandise From Theft" (pub. 2012‑11‑22). Expressly incorporated by reference into the '508 specification ("techniques for determining a location of the portable electronic device 15 similar to those disclosed in U.S. Publication No. 2012/0293330… the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference"). Directly supplies the location/perimeter/authorized-area alarm concepts of Group D.
• U.S. Pat. No. 7,737,845 — "Programmable Key for a Security System for Protecting Merchandise." Expressly incorporated by reference ("the key 25A is similar to that disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 7,737,845… the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference"). Supplies the electronic key / arm-disarm / wireless security-code concepts.
• US 2012/0188082 A1 (Berglund et al., pub. 2012‑07‑26) — appeared in the citation sets of the family/related documents and falls before the priority date. (I could confirm its presence in a citation set; I did not independently verify its full disclosure, so I use it only as corroborating context and not as a primary reference.)

(ii) References appearing in the family's citation lists but published AFTER 2013‑06‑11 (date-barred as §102(a)(1) art; flag for verification under §102(a)(2)/§102(e)):

• US 2014/0118930 A1 / US 9,163,433 B2 / US 10,176,345 B2 / US 2016/0004886 A1 — InVue, "Display stand for a tablet computer" (sleeve + base that releasably locks the sleeve and tablet, keyed lock, power transfer). Confirmed in the citation sets.
• US 9,032,766 B2 — Ingamar Co. Ltd., "Anti-theft mechanism for electronic devices." Confirmed in the citation set.
• WO 2015/150729 A3 (Spotspot Ltd.), US 2016/0007487 A1 / US 9,575,506 B2 (Aba Ufo), US 2014/0324608 A1 (Partner Tech), US 2018/0279805 A1 (Compucage). Confirmed in the citation sets but post-date the priority date.

Because §103 requires prior art, Grounds 1–2 below are built predominantly on (i); the (ii) documents are noted where they would be highly probative if they qualify under §102(a)(2)/§102(e), and I flag that verification as a prerequisite.

3. Ground 1 — Shroud + locking dock + spring-biased finger + contact charging (Group A)

Combination: US 8,418,514 B2 (ACCO) in view of US 2012/0293330 (InVue) and the admitted/knowledge-level mechanical and charging arts.

• ACCO '514 supplies the shroud/case that at least partially encloses and physically secures a portable electronic device — the very element recited in Group A — in the same retail anti-theft field.
• The incorporated '330 publication (and the '508 specification's own admissions) supplies the dock/alarm/monitoring architecture for retail display merchandise, including alarm-on-separation.
• The remaining elements — a spring-biased finger/plunger that extends and retracts into a groove (26A) of a mating part to hold two components together, and contact (pogo/pad) charging through mating contacts (34)/(53) on a shroud and dock — are among the most conventional mechanical and electrical expedients in the security-dock art. The specification itself acknowledges this: the finger "may be spring-biased towards an extended position," and the flexible cable may be "flat or ribbon-like … a design choice to avoid interfering with device insertion."

Motivation to combine (KSR): Both references address the identical problem — securing an expensive tablet in a retail/point-of-sale environment while allowing an authorized user to remove it. The combination yields the predictable result of an enclosing case that is docked and released by a detent, with power passed through the case to the device. There is an explicit design incentive: passing power through the shroud avoids a separate tether to the tablet (the specification repeatedly touts the "no tether required" and battery-extension benefits). A POSITA would have had both the reason and the ability to substitute a known spring-finger detent for any other known shroud-to-dock retention mechanism, and to route a low-profile ribbon cable along the interior of the case to device contacts — a predictable adaptation, not an inventive leap.

4. Ground 2 — Electro-mechanical (motor/cam/switch) and mechanical (key/cam) release (Group B)

Combination: ACCO '514 or InVue '433 (if date-qualified) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 7,737,845 (InVue programmable key) and the general cam-actuated-bolt art.

• The mechanical key 25B + rotating cam 46 with camming surfaces 47 that push spring-biased fingers inward is textbook cam/bolt mechanics. The specification itself describes the cam as "a disk member with a camming surface on opposing sides" — an off-the-shelf mechanical arrangement. No reference is needed beyond the ordinary skill level for this element; the finger/cam/spring mechanism is the presumptive default for biased locking elements.
• The electro-mechanical variant (motor 56 → gear 57 → cam 58 → camming surfaces 58A → cam engagement members 58B tripping switch 59, with partial (<360°) cam rotation driving retraction) is likewise a conventional motorized cam-and-limit-switch arrangement. The switch actuated by cam rotation to turn the motor on/off is a routine engineering implementation of a rotary limit switch.
• The electronic key 25A that arms/disarms the alarm and activates the motor, with a unique identifying code recognizable by the dock but not by other docks (col. describing port 55A), is supplied in substance by the incorporated 7,737,845 programmable-key disclosure, which teaches exactly this SDC-code, wireless (IR/RF/inductive) arming/disarming paradigm.

Motivation to combine: The field was migrating from mechanical keys to programmable electronic keys for auditability and per-store/code security (a trend 7,737,845 itself embodies). Substituting (or offering both) a mechanical-key release and an electronic-key release for the same finger-lock mechanism is the kind of predictable "duplicate the known options" design choice KSR sanctions, because the two are alternative actuation inputs to the identical mechanical output (retracting the fingers) and the artisan would recognize both as useful in different deployment scenarios (mechanical key as a low-power backup; electronic key for store-wide key management).

5. Ground 3 — Handle + arms that stay on the device when undocked (Group C)

Combination: A known tablet clamp/holder (corroborated by the family's cited art such as US 2014/0324608 A1 "Adjustable security device for laptop computer" and US 2018/0279805 A1 "Combined clamp and lock," subject to their §102(a)(2)/§102(e) date qualification) in view of ACCO '514 / '330.

• Multiple clamping arms with engagement members that hook over an edge/front face of a tablet, adjustable across lateral/longitudinal axes (L1, L2) to accommodate different device sizes, is squarely conventional in the tablet-holder and laptop-security arts. The specification's own framing — arms "configured to be adjusted relative to the handle 26 to accommodate different sized portable electronic devices 15" — is a routine adjustability-for-compatibility objective.
• The allegedly distinguishing feature is that the device can be removed from the dock while the arms remain in engagement with the device so the user can carry the tablet with the holder attached. That is a functional consequence of mounting the arms to the handle (which is part of the shroud/holder) rather than to the dock, and of disengaging the handle from the dock via the finger mechanism. A POSITA designing a carryable, dockable tablet holder would naturally separate "retain the device in the holder" from "lock the holder to the dock" — the specification practically states the benefit ("a user is able to carry the portable electronic device 15 while the arms 60 remain engaged therewith").

Motivation to combine: A single recognized design goal — let the user keep the protective/holding structure on the tablet between dockings while the dock retains only the handle — motivates the architecture. Combining known adjustable clamps with a known lockable dock is a predictable re-arrangement of known parts with no change in their respective functions.

6. Ground 4 — Paired key, location/perimeter alarm, sense loop, light detection (Group D)

• The location-relative-to-authorized-device/location/perimeter limitation is met in substance by the incorporated US 2012/0293330, which teaches location-based protection of retail display merchandise; the '508 specification even repeats the "authorized perimeter may be 'mobile' or 'dynamic'" and "virtual map"/node concepts derived from that body of work.
• The paired key 25A that monitors signal strength/distance and generates a warning (and the "too close"/"too far" variants, snooze, timeout, authentication) is supplied by the incorporated 7,737,845 key disclosure in combination with ordinary proximity-detection engineering (RSSI, GPS, gyros, accelerometers — all admitted in the specification as "existing functionality of the device").
• The sense loop broken by removal of the shroud from the dock is the natural electrical consequence of mating contacts (34)/(53); the specification states the contacts "may also define a detectable sense loop that is in electrical connection with the monitoring electronics 54." Monitoring a continuity loop to detect removal is a ubiquitous anti-theft technique.
• The light-level-change-while-moving detection for concealment (bag/under clothing) is the thinnest element from a prior-art standpoint. If a specific prior-art reference teaches the light-level-plus-motion combination, this element is likely combinable as an obvious telemetry add-on; absent such a reference (which I could not confirm in the available citation data), this element deserves the closest scrutiny and is the best candidate for a secondary-considerations or unexpected-results argument.

7. Why a POSITA would combine — the KSR factors applied

1. Same field / same problem. Every candidate reference addresses securing portable electronic devices against theft in retail or display environments. The field is narrow and the references are combinable by design.
2. Predictable results. Each element performs its known function: a biased finger retains a mating part; a cam converts rotation to linear retraction; a limit switch stops a motor; a ribbon cable carries power; a clamp holds a device; a loop detects disconnection. Combining them yields nothing more than the sum of these known functions.
3. Express design incentives in the specification itself. The '508 specification expressly touts (a) no-tether wireless security, (b) passing power through the shroud to avoid a separate cord and to extend battery life, (c) adjustability for different device sizes, (d) key pairing to warn a user who "has left the portable electronic device behind," and (e) the option of both mechanical and electronic key release. These are stated objectives, i.e., the problem was known and the solution was a selection among known techniques.
4. "Obvious to try" alternatives. The finger can be spring-biased or motor/electronically driven; the lock can be mechanical or electronic; the cable can be internal or external. The patent claims these as alternatives — which is itself evidence of a finite set of predictable options.

8. Counter-considerations and where the patent can be defended

• Date defense. A substantial portion of the citation list is post‑2013‑06‑11. If Petitioner/Examiner relies on US 9,163,433 / US 2016/0004886 (InVue itself), WO 2015/150729, US 9,575,506, US 2014/0324608 or US 2018/0279805, the patent owner should challenge those references as not prior art absent an earlier §102(a)(2)/§102(e) effective filing date. This is the single most consequential procedural point in this family, because several of the "closest" disclosures are the applicant's own later publications.
• Secondary considerations. I have no evidence in the record supplied to me of unexpected results, long-felt need, industry praise, copying, or commercial success. Any such evidence (e.g., marketplace acceptance of InVue's dock/shroud products, licensing or competitor copying) would need to be developed and nexus-tied to the specific Group A/B/C/D limitations.
• Specificity of the switch/cam timing. If a claim requires a specific structural interrelationship — e.g., "the switch configured to be actuated in response to rotation of the cam for turning the motor on or off" tied to a partial (<360°) rotation — that may be narrow enough to survive if the prior art lacks the cam-driven switch timing. This is a strong candidate for a §103 rebuttal focus.
• The "arms remain engaged while device is removed from dock" limitation should be checked against the date-qualified clamp references; if no qualifying reference teaches arms mounted to a handle that stays with the device while the dock releases, that limitation may be the family's strongest non-obvious hook.

9. Bottom line

Subject to the two verification caveats in §0 (the exact claim language and the exact citation list were not in the material I received), the '508 claims are highly vulnerable under §103 as a predictable combination of:

• a protective shroud/case (ACCO US 8,418,514 B2) +
• a locking dock and alarm architecture (incorporated US 2012/0293330) +
• conventional cam/finger and motor/limit-switch lock mechanics +
• conventional contact charging via a ribbon cable routed through the case +
• the programmable electronic key of incorporated U.S. Pat. No. 7,737,845 +

all aimed at the same admitted objective of securing a tablet while permitting authorized dock/undock. The most defensible limitations are (i) the cam-rotation-actuated motor switch, (ii) the arms-that-stay-with-the-device-while-dock-releases architecture, and (iii) the light-level-plus-motion concealment detection — but only to the extent the applicant can show the available prior art (properly date-qualified) does not teach or suggest them.

Recommended next steps before finalizing: (1) obtain the literal claim set of US 10,738,508; (2) obtain the official "References Cited" list and confirm each reference's effective filing/publication date against the 11 June 2013 priority date; (3) run a targeted prior-art search on cam-actuated limit-switch locks, spring-finger dock detents, and light-plus-motion concealment detection predating June 2013, since these are the elements I could not fully ground from the available citation data.