US 10896589

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including USPTO records and any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me search for the actual claim text and any Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity specific to this patent.

Let me try to retrieve the actual claim text and check for any Federal Circuit docket specifically naming this patent.

US Patent 10,896,589 — Analyst Summary

Sources used

• Google Patents full text for US10896589B2 (furnished as authoritative in this matter)
• Justia Patents claim listing for US 10,896,589 / US2018/0301012A1 (principal independent claim text)
• USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board / CAFC filings surfaced via search

Important caveat up front: I was able to retrieve the bibliographic data and the beginning of the claim set, but the claim listing I could access terminated mid‑set (at claim 14). I therefore have high confidence in claim 1 as an independent claim and in the dependent claims I could read, but I cannot authoritatively confirm whether additional independent claims exist later in the claim set or the exact total claim count. Everything else below is grounded in the fetched record.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

"Systems and methods are provided for worker protection. A safety vest may be configured to support worker protection receiver function in worker protection systems. Components used in conjunction with the receiver functions may be integrated into the safety vest. The components may include one or more antennas, radio receiver (or transceiver) circuitry, integrated power supply source, indication components, and acknowledgement components. The safety vest may generate safety alerts in response to receiving signals from peer transmitter devices in the worker protection systems."

Plain-language overview of the claims

Independent claim 1 — "A worker protection system comprising:"

Claim 1 is drafted as a system claim whose central element is a safety vest worn by a worker. In plain terms, the vest integrates:

1. A power supply that powers the vest's on-board components;
2. One or more antennas capable of at least receiving wireless signals;
3. One or more circuits that process signals and data and perform functions relating to the vest's operation.

The claim then requires the functional chain: the antenna(s) receive wireless signals from one or more transmitting devices (i.e., peer devices such as a vehicle alert device or wayside unit); the circuit(s) process those signals, generate a safety alert based on them, and output one or more alert indications to the worker based on that alert.

Scope note: Claim 1 is relatively broad — it recites receiving capability (not necessarily transmitting), and it does not itself specify where on the vest the antennas sit, whether the alert is audio/visual/tactile, or what the trigger criterion is. Those specifics are pushed into the dependent claims. This breadth is consistent with the specification's stated purpose: solving the problem that workers may pocket, drop, or lose a separate receiver, and ensuring the receiver's antenna has a clear line of sight rather than being blocked by the worker's body.

Dependent claims I could verify (claims 2–14)

These narrow the independent claim and track the specification:

• Claim 2 — the circuits determine when alert conditions exist from the processed signals and generate the safety alert on that basis.
• Claim 3 — the antenna(s) are arranged to receive signals from any direction.
• Claim 4 — the antenna(s) are arranged on the front, sides and back of the vest (the specification frames this as guaranteeing at least one antenna remains in line-of-sight to the transmitter regardless of worker orientation, and as enabling diversity operation).
• Claim 5 — the antenna(s) are configured for diversity during reception/transmission.
• Claim 6 — the circuits log data relating to alerts triggered/handled by the vest.
• Claim 7 — the power supply is a rechargeable power supply.
• Claim 8 — the rechargeable supply charges without direct connection (i.e., inductive/wireless charging, matching the FIG. 2A/2B charging‑station disclosure).
• Claim 9 — the vest includes acknowledgment component(s) to accept worker input acknowledging the alert.
• Claim 10 — the vest includes indicator component(s) for output.
• Claim 11 — the circuits output the alert indications via those indicator components.
• Claim 12 — the circuits configure the alert indications for output via the indicator components.
• Claim 13 — the indicator components comprise at least one of a visual, audio, or tactile indicator.
• Claim 14 — (began but truncated in the retrieved listing).

Uncertainty flag: I could not confirm the text of claims beyond claim 14, nor independently verify whether claim 1 is the sole independent claim. Treat the claim‑count and any additional independent claims as unverified.

CAFC / USPTO 2026 docket check — specific to US 10,896,589

I did not find any Federal Circuit docket in 2026 naming US 10,896,589. The prominent 2026 Federal Circuit activity for this patent family belongs to different Metrom patents:

• Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Nos. 2024‑2223, 2024‑2264 (Fed. Cir.) — a nonprecedential disposition issued May 11, 2026 addressing IPR challenges to U.S. 8,812,227 ("the '227 patent") and U.S. 9,043,131 ("the '131 patent"), not the '089 patent. The court affirmed the Board's obviousness holdings as to the '227 claims and '131 claims 1–16, and addressed the cross‑appeal on '131 claims 17–20 (limitation 17C, "a first wireless communications antenna operable to send and receive data representing the separation distance over the air").
• Metrom filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in June 2026 in those appeals, arguing inter alia that the panel adopted a claim construction no party advanced, in tension with Clark v. Sweeney (2025) and party‑presentation precedent.

District court matters in which Metrom has asserted patents (e.g., Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., D. Del. 1:22‑cv‑00049‑RGA / transferred to S.D.N.Y.; and Metrom Rail, LLC v. Piper Networks, Inc., S.D.N.Y.) as reported in the pleadings I retrieved assert patents such as 10,778,363; 8,812,227; 9,043,131; 10,737,709; 10,179,595; and 9,731,738 — the '089 patent does not appear among the patents listed in those complaints. So, on the record I could retrieve, the '089 patent has not been shown to be in suit or on appeal.

If you need a definitive litigation/docket confirmation for '089 specifically, that would require a direct USPTO PatentCenter / PTAB and CAFC PACER docket query rather than the web results available to me here; I would not represent the above as a complete litigation history.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 10,896,589. Let me search multiple sources.

Initial results are not on point. Let me search more specifically for the patent's assignee and related litigation.

Let me search patent litigation databases specifically for this patent number.

Bottom Line

I could not identify any litigation that specifically asserts U.S. Patent No. 10,896,589. I searched patent-litigation-focused sources (CourtListener/RECAP, Justia, Docket Alarm, RPX Insight, Unified Patents-related dockets, and general web) and found no complaint, IPR, or other proceeding in which the '589 patent is named as an asserted patent. No auto-correction of the number was applied.

I want to be transparent about a limitation: I did not have direct, exhaustive access to a live PACER/Unified Patents litigation database query for the exact string "10896589." I reached a tool-call limit before I could run the remaining targeted docket queries. So my conclusion is "none found," not "none exists definitively."

What I Did Find: The Related Metrom Rail Litigation Campaign

The '589 patent is owned by Metrom Rail, LLC ("a safety vest for use in worker protection systems," a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 15/623,996 → US 10,336,353, which is a CIP of Ser. No. 15/078,427 → US 10,179,595). Metrom Rail is a prolific patent enforcer against train-control vendors. The cases below are real, verifiable Metrom Rail cases, but — importantly — none of them names US 10,896,589 among the asserted patents. The patents actually asserted are the '131, '227, '738, '595 and others.

For completeness, here are the Metrom Rail cases I located:

1. Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al.

• Jurisdiction: [U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Judge Richard G. Andrews)](/courts/district-of-delaware-judge)
• Case No.: 1:22-cv-00049-RGA
• Filed: January 13, 2022
• Defendants: Siemens Mobility, Inc.; Humatics Corp.; Piper Networks, Inc.; Thales Transport & Security, Inc.; Thales USA, Inc.
• Patents asserted (per Rule 3 report): US 10,778,363; US 8,812,227; US 9,043,131; US 10,737,709; US 10,179,595
• Status: stayed pending the parallel IPRs (per docket/motion filings)
• Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1550896](/patent/1550896)/download-documents

2. Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. (S.D.N.Y.)

• Case No.: 1:23-cv-03057 (referenced as "Case No. 23-3057" in a related filing)
• Filed: 2023
• Claims included patent infringement (Counts I–III) and tortious interference (Count IV)
• Source: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/14728170

3. Metrom Rail, LLC v. Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc., et al.

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
• Case No.: 1:23-cv-02920
• Filed: 2023
• Referenced as a "related case" in the MBTA/Piper matter below

4. Metrom Rail, LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and Piper Networks, Inc.

• Originally filed: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:25-cv-11446-ADB (Judge Allison D. Burroughs), filed May 21, 2025
• Severed/transferred as to Piper to: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:25-cv-10417-DLC (Judge Denise L. Cote)
• Patents asserted: US 9,043,131 ('131) and US 9,371,738 ('738)
• Status (as of the latest documents surfaced, 2026): Piper's motion to dismiss denied in part (5/20/2026); the '738 claim survives and the '131 claim was dismissed as moot; case stayed pending the Federal Circuit's final ruling on the '131 patent (Order 6/4/2026); preliminary-injunction motions denied without prejudice.
• Sources: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72043751/ ; https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2025cv10417/[654853/113](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=654853-0113)/

5. Inter Partes Reviews (PTAB) — Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Nos. 24-2223, 24-2236, 24-2264)

• Petitioners: Siemens Mobility, Inc.; Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc.; Humatics Corp.; Piper Networks, Inc.
• Challenged patents: US 9,043,131 ('131) and US 8,812,227 ('227)
• Federal Circuit decision: May 11, 2026 — affirmed unpatentability of all '227 claims and claims 1–16 of '131; reversed the Board as to claims 17–20 of '131 (found unpatentable).
• Sources: https://cafc.uscourts.gov//opinions-orders/24-2223.OPINION.5-11-2026_2691571.pdf ; https://fedcircuitblog.com/2026/05/12/opinions-orders-may-12-2026/

Assessment

• No litigation specifically asserting US 10,896,589 was found.
• The '589 patent sits in a different product family (worker-worn safety vest / worker-protection receivers) than the train collision-avoidance patents Metrom Rail has actually litigated. That likely explains the absence of asserted litigation: even where a party (e.g., Metrom) litigates a family of patents, individual continuation/sibling patents such as '589 are frequently not asserted.
• Because the '589 patent shares priority lineage with US 10,179,595 (parent 15/078,427), and '595 was asserted in the D. Del. action (No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA), you may wish to confirm whether '589 was ever added by amendment to that or another complaint. My searches did not surface any such amendment.

Recommendation for confirmation: run a docket-level search (e.g., Bloomberg Law, Lex Machina, Docket Alarm, or the Unified Patents litigation portal) on the exact strings "10896589" and "10,896,589," and separately query the Litigation Search under assignee "Metrom Rail, LLC" to catch any case in which the '589 patent was later added. If such a search also returns nothing, you can state with confidence that no litigation involving this patent is known.

I am flagging explicitly that I could not fully exhaust the paid docket databases, so I am stating this as "none found" rather than an absolute negative.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against public sources, since the ODP block reports zero proceedings.

Focused searches on the '589 patent itself:

Proceedings overview

Zero. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — the canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list for US 10,896,589 — is empty, and my independent web searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming US 10,896,589 as the challenged patent. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. Bottom line for a defendant: this patent is completely untested at the PTAB. You cannot tell a judge or an adversary that "claims 1–N are already dead" — but equally, the patent owner cannot point to a Board decision that hardened it, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to this patent from anyone. Any invalidity theory against the '589 is a first-mover play, not a follow-on.

No proceedings to report on this patent

There is no proceeding entry to populate. I am stating that affirmatively rather than padding the section, because fabricating a proceeding number would be worse than an empty section. Specifically:

• The ODP block reports no AIA trial proceedings as of the most recent ingest.
• Targeted searches on the patent number ("10,896,589", "10896589"), on the title ("Safety vest for use in worker protection systems"), and on the assignee/patent owner (Metrom Rail, LLC) returned no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal docket for the '589.
• The '589 does not appear in the related-matters sections of the Metrom-family IPRs I could retrieve, and it does not appear among the patents asserted in the Metrom district-court campaign (the asserted set I could confirm is the '131, '227, and '738 patents — see below).

Caveat on scope of my search. I hit the tool-step ceiling before I could exhaustively run every variant (e.g., a recently-filed 2026 petition whose number the ODP has not yet indexed, or a petition filed under a joinder caption). Treat "zero" as "zero found," with the ODP block as the authoritative baseline. If you are defending an active demand letter, a live PACTS/PTAB E2E lookup by patent number on the day you file is the final word.

Appendix — related Metrom Rail proceedings on different patents (context only)

These are not proceedings on US 10,896,589. Their patents share a corporate owner and a technical neighborhood with the '589 (railway worker-protection / collision-avoidance radio hardware), which is why they matter strategically — but none of them touches the '589 claims, and none of them creates estoppel against the '589.

IPR2023-00470 — Siemens Mobility, Inc., Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc., Humatics Corp., and Piper Networks, Inc. v. Metrom Rail, LLC

• Patent: US 8,812,227 B2 ("Collision avoidance system for rail line vehicles")
• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Status: Final Written Decision issued — all challenged claims unpatentable
• Judge panel: Neil T. Powell, Stacey G. White, Iftikhar Ahmed (Ahmed authored)
• FWD: 2024-06-18 — "we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–28 are unpatentable."
• Appeal: affirmed by the Federal Circuit, Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 24-2223 (Fed. Cir. 2026-05-11) (nonprecedential).
• Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00470/Siemens_Mobility_Inc._v._Metrom_Rail_LLC/docs/06-18-2024-Board/Final_Written_Decision__original-71-Final_Written_Decision__original.pdf

IPR2023-00468 — same petitioner coalition v. Metrom Rail, LLC

• Patent: US 9,043,131 B2 ("Collision avoidance system for rail line vehicles")
• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Status: Final Written Decision — claims 1–16 unpatentable; claims 17–20 upheld
• Judge panel: same panel (Powell, White, Ahmed)
• FWD: 2024-06-18 — "Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable." The Board found Grisham did not disclose limitation 17C ("a first wireless communications antenna operable to send and receive data representing the separation distance over the air").
• Appeal: reversed in part — the Federal Circuit held claims 17–20 obvious, adopting a construction in which any over-the-air signals whose timing is used for a time-of-flight distance calculation constitute "data representing the separation distance." Taranto, J., concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part on that point (party-presentation/forfeiture grounds).
• Sources: https://cafc.uscourts.gov//opinions-orders/24-2223.OPINION.5-11-2026_2691571.pdf ; https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10856969](/patent/10856969)/metrom-rail-llc-v-siemens-mobility-inc/ ; https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-2223/24-2223-2026-05-11.html
• A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc by Metrom is publicly posted (raising Clark v. Sweeney, In re Google Tech. Holdings, and Graham/Ormco nexus issues): https://fedcircuitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/COMBINED-PETITION-FOR-PANEL-REHEARING-AND-REHEARING-EN-BANC-FOR-APPELLANT-METROM-RAIL-LLC.pdf — I could not confirm the disposition of that petition from the sources retrieved.

IPR2024-00947 — Siemens Mobility / Ground Transportation Systems USA / Piper Networks v. Metrom Rail, LLC

• Patent: US 9,731,738 B2 ("Rail vehicle signal enforcement and separation control")
• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Status: Likely institution denied — I found an MLex report (2025-04-04) that the USPTO Delegated Review Panel declined to disturb a discretionary denial of an IPR petition against a Metrom patent by Siemens Mobility, Ground Transportation Systems USA and Piper Networks, clarifying that "a reference appearing only on a search report is not enough" to qualify as "previously presented art" under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The same § 325(d) / Kane-vs-Knott question appears in the IPR2024-00947 record. I am flagging this as inferred, not confirmed — verify on PTAB E2E before relying on it.
• Sources: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2024_00947_paper_16_.pdf ; https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/[2322227](/patent/2322227)/in-win-for-metrom-discretionary-denial-of-us-patent-review-will-stand

Other coalition filings (targets unconfirmed)

The IPR2023-00470 FWD's related-matters section reports that IPR2023-00439, IPR2023-00452, and IPR2023-00460 "involve the same parties." I could not confirm which patents those three challenge. If you need the full family map, pull all five from PTAB E2E.

Underlying litigation (not a PTAB proceeding, but the reason to care)

Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA (D. Del. filed 2022-01-13), later transferred and severed to S.D.N.Y. as Nos. 23-cv-02920 and 23-cv-03057. The S.D.N.Y. stayed the case in its entirety on 2024-01-29 pending the IPRs. Real parties identified by the petitioner coalition include Siemens Mobility, Ground Transportation Systems USA, Humatics, Piper Networks, and Thales USA. The '589 is not among the patents I could confirm as asserted.

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '589. The claims of US 10,896,589 are entirely UNTESTED. None is canceled; none has been adjudicated valid; none has been construed by the Board. Unlike its siblings — where all 28 claims of the '227 died at the PTAB and the Federal Circuit, and claims 1–16 of the '131 died and claims 17–20 later died on appeal — the '589 stands with its original claim set intact as issued 2021-01-19. If you are a defendant, do not assume the family's bad PTAB record carries over: the '589 is a CIP filed 2018-06-20 claiming benefit through Ser. Nos. 15/623,996 (2017-06-15) and 15/078,427 (2016-03-23) and Provisional No. 62/605,486 (2017-08-15). Its effective filing date, claim scope, and art set are materially different from the '131/'227 (which claim priority to 2011-05-19). The art that killed the siblings (Grisham, Nixon, Richardson, Douglas, Suzuki) is a starting library, not a ready-made ground.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR was ever instituted on the '589, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not bar any ground against it — not for Siemens/Humatics/Piper/GTS/Thales (who are estopped only as to the patents they actually challenged), and not for anyone else. Every § 102/§ 103 combination, including art already used against the sibling patents, remains available in a fresh '589 IPR and in district court. The flip side: you get no free ride from the siblings' FWDs either — you must independently chart the '589's claims, and the patent owner will likely argue that a § 315(a)/(b) or Fintiv-style discretionary denial applies to any petition filed while the stayed S.D.N.Y. case looms.

Pattern signals. There is a determined, repeat-player defense coalition (Siemens Mobility + Ground Transportation Systems USA + Humatics + Piper + Thales, with Crowell & Moring, McAndrews, and Faegre Drinker on the papers) that has filed a cluster of IPRs — IPR2023-00439/-00452/-00460/-00468/-00470 plus IPR2024-00947 — against the Metrom rail portfolio, with mixed results: total wins on the '227, a 16-of-20 win on the '131 eventually completed on appeal, and at least one discretionary denial under § 325(d). Metrom, for its part, is an aggressive appellant (cross-appealed issues in 24-2223/24-2264 and has sought en banc review). No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) appears in any real-party-in-interest identification I retrieved. Notably, the coalition has not (yet) filed on the '589 — consistent with the '589 apparently not being asserted in the litigation.

The absence is itself a signal, read carefully. The '589 has been on file since 2018 and granted since 2021-01-19, with an adjusted expiration of 2036-08-31. In this portfolio, patents get IPR'd when they get asserted. The cleanest inference is that the '589 is a vest-form-factor claim that the accused systems (fixed wayside/train-mounted UWB installations) may not read on — so it has not been worth asserting or attacking. That is a double-edged comfort: low assertion risk, but if a demand letter does cite the '589, the asserter is likely reaching.

Recommended next steps

• If you received a demand letter or complaint citing US 10,896,589: there is no FWD to link to and no cancelation to quote. Your best immediate levers are (a) a live PTAB E2E / PACTS check by patent number to confirm the empty docket on your filing date, and (b) an independent § 102/§ 103 chart. Do not represent to a court that any '589 claim has been canceled — it hasn't.
• If you are contemplating an IPR on the '589: you have no § 315(e)(2) estoppel problem, but be ready for a § 314(a)/Fintiv or § 325(d) fight. The family-wide § 325(d) precedent from the '738 discretionary denial (a reference appearing only in a search report is not "previously presented art") cuts in your favor if your art is new to the '589's file history. Note the § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of a complaint asserting this patent — confirm whether the '589 has ever been served on you.
• If a '589 petition is filed while you read this: statutory milestones to calendar are (i) PO Preliminary Response due 3 months after notice, (ii) institution decision due 6 months after the petition's filing date, (iii) FWD due within 12 months of institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), extendable for good cause. Watch for joinder with the sibling IPRs (which would import the Powell/White/Ahmed familiarity with the Metrom prior-art record) and for a motion to stay in S.D.N.Y. 23-cv-02920 / 23-cv-03057.
• Monitoring step: the '589 sits in the same specification family as US 10,179,595, US 10,737,709, and US 11,492,027. I observed what appears to be a petition record (PTACTS petition ID 1550904) referencing US 10,737,709 and grouping "worker protection system" claims into PAD / VAD / WDU groups — likely a '709 IPR — but I could not confirm a proceeding number. Pull that from PTAB E2E; a '709 or '595 IPR would be the leading indicator that the wearables/vest-adjacent claims are next.

Confidence notes. High confidence: zero PTAB proceedings on US 10,896,589 in the ODP data and in everything I retrieved. High confidence on the '468/'470 FWDs and the 2026-05-11 Federal Circuit disposition. Lower confidence (flagged above): the institution-denied status of IPR2024-00947, the target patents of IPR2023-00439/-00452/-00460, and the proceeding number associated with PTACTS petition 1550904.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,896,589 across the sources available to me.

Assignment / Ownership Analysis — US 10,896,589 B2

Scope caveat before the findings: I could retrieve the legal-events record for the '589 patent (Google Patents, furnished as authoritative in this matter, plus corroborating secondary sources). I could not retrieve the underlying USPTO Assignment Center record itself — i.e., the reel/frame number, the correspondent of record, and the exact execution date were not returned by any search I ran. I am therefore reporting the assignment chain with high confidence and leaving the reel/frame and correspondent fields explicitly marked not retrieved. I will not invent them. Anyone needing the reel/frame must query https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ directly.

One internal contradiction worth flagging up front, per the cross-reference instruction: the previously generated summary states the original and current assignee is Metrom Rail, LLC. However, in related-patent citation tables I retrieved, the assignee column for US 10,896,589 B2 is populated as "Richard C. Carlson" (e.g., the citation table surfaced via the Google Patents pages for Metrom's '363 and '027 family members). That is a metadata discrepancy, not necessarily a real ownership one — but it does correlate with the fact that the application was filed by Carlson on 2018-06-20 and only assigned to Metrom Rail ~2.5 months later (recorded 2018-09-05). That ordering is consistent with an inventor-filed application later assigned to the company, which can leave the "applicant" metadata pointing at the inventor in some databases. Verify the printed front page (item (73)) before relying on either source.

Inventors

Pattern check — inventor attrition: Not present. The typical "all inventors gone within 12 months of filing" fire-sale precursor does not appear here. Carlson co-founded Metrom Rail (formed ~December 2010 per the IPR deposition testimony retrieved from PTAB filings) and is still named as an inventor on Metrom patents issued as late as US 12,258,058 B2 (March 25, 2025). His residence moves are local (Woodstock → Lake in the Hills, IL), not indicative of exit. This is a founder-inventor who stayed.

Minor structural oddity (not a red flag): the '589 is a sole-inventor filing, whereas sibling Metrom applications (e.g., US 10,737,709, US 10,363,353) name larger teams (Carlson, Gunther, Woitel, Cygnus, Strezev, Plutt). A one-inventor vest filing inside a multi-inventor rail-safety portfolio is unremarkable, but it does mean there is no co-inventor whose departure could be tracked as a signal.

Original assignee

• Entity on the record: Metrom Rail, LLC (Illinois limited liability company).
• Primary line of business: railroad/railway safety instrumentation. Its own trademark filings (retrieved via Onscope) describe "sensor systems, sensors, circuitry, connections, controls and control systems used in the railroad and railway industry," "systems … used in the railway industry to prevent collisions between rail-mounted vehicles and persons, for example, railway employees," and communication antennas/towers for railway systems. Marks include AURA, METROMRAIL, and SenTrack.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Partially determinable, and the answer is "products — yes; this product — not established." Metrom shipped commercial product: per sworn IPR testimony retrieved from the PTAB record, Metrom delivered its first commercial MOW safety system in 2012, and its product list in testimony included AURA CAS (collision avoidance), MOW CAS, an Ice and Snow Breaker, and the SenTrack derailment/dragging-equipment system (proof-of-concept units only). Separately, in Metrom Rail v. Siemens Mobility the Federal Circuit recited Metrom's argument that its AURA CAS product uses UWB + GPS for separation detection. However, I found no evidence that Metrom commercializes a safety vest embodying the '589 claims. The '589 vest appears to be a defensive/portfolio extension of the worker-protection family (the specification states the vest may be used "in lieu of" the PAD 110), not a shown commercial vest SKU.
• Addresses of record (from sibling Metrom patents): Crystal Lake, IL ('709); Lake Zurich, IL ('797); Lakemoor, IL ('058). All are real Illinois operating locations — none is a registered-agent or mail-drop service address. This is a concrete anti-shell indicator.
• Current status: Operating. Actively litigating its own rail-safety patents as plaintiff (e.g., Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., D. Del. 1:22-cv-00049 then S.D.N.Y.; Metrom Rail, LLC v. Piper Networks, Inc., S.D.N.Y.; Metrom Rail, LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority et al., S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-10417, transferred from D. Mass. in December 2025). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition found.

Assignment timeline

Recorded assignment entries: 1 (the original inventor→company assignment). No post-issuance transfers found.

• Executed 2018 (exact date not retrieved) / recorded 2018-09-05 — Reel not retrieved / Frame not retrieved
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (Google Patents legal-event text: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: CARLSON, RICHARD (Richard C. Carlson)
  • Assignee: METROM RAIL, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. Note for the record: Metrom's patent prosecution paperwork in the PTAB filings I retrieved carries the firm header McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., which is plausibly the firm of record on Metrom's prosecution/assignment filings across this family. I am flagging this as an unverified inference, not a recorded correspondent — I did not see McAndrews named as the correspondent on the '589 assignment itself. Flag condition is therefore unmet on the evidence available.
  • Context: Standard founder-employee ownership assignment — the sole inventor assigning his own application to the company he co-founded, recorded roughly 11 weeks after the 2018-06-20 filing date. Not a fire-sale, not a securitization, not a transfer to an asserter.

Non-assignment legal events (listed so they are not mistaken for assignments):

• 2016-03-23 — priority claimed from US 15/078,427 (external priority; a priority claim, not an assignment)
• 2017-06-15 — priority claimed from US 15/623,996 (external priority; not an assignment)
• 2018-06-20 — application filed (16/013,596)
• 2018-10-18 — pre-grant publication US2018/0301012 A1
• 2021-01-19 — patent granted
• 2036-08-31 — adjusted expiration (patent term as listed)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10896589
    2016 : Priority date claimed
    2018 : Application filed by Carlson
         : Assigned to Metrom Rail LLC
    2021 : Patent issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Note on what is absent: this is notable because the assignee family here is a serial plaintiff with 2024–2026 Federal Circuit and PTAB activity. If an NPE transfer were going to appear in Metrom's portfolio, this is a family where you would expect to see it — and it does not appear for the '589.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The only recorded ownership event is a founder-to-company assignment of the 2018-06-20 application (assignor Richard C. Carlson → assignee Metrom Rail, LLC, executed 2018, recorded 2018-09-05, Google Patents legal-events entry "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST"), and Metrom Rail remains the current assignee with real Illinois operating addresses and no successor entity. Metrom Rail is a product-shipping operating company (commercial MOW collision-avoidance product delivered 2012; AURA CAS per its own Federal Circuit briefing) that litigates its own patents in its own name against rail-industry competitors (Siemens Mobility, Piper Networks, MBTA) — the classic operating-company-assertion posture, with zero shell-entity, cascading-transfer, fire-sale, privateering, or defensive-aggregator signals present.

Honest limits on that verdict: (i) no NPE signal is present because there is effectively only the original assignment in the chain, so this is closer to "clean" than to "affirmatively proven operating-company assertion"; (ii) I found no evidence that Metrom ship a safety vest embodying the '589 claims, so the "ships products embodying the claims" prong rests on the company's general product line rather than on this patent's subject matter; and (iii) the '589 patent has not been shown to be asserted in any retrieved complaint. Confirm the reel/frame and correspondent at the USPTO Assignment Center before finalizing any litigation-driven conclusion.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 10,896,589; mirrored index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

I'll search for the specific patent and its cited prior art references.

Let me search for the specific patent's citation list directly.

Let me try to retrieve the actual citation list from Google Patents and Justia.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,896,589 B2 ("Safety vest for use in worker protection systems")

Date note: The task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the session metadata shows 2026-10-01. I flag the discrepancy rather than assume one; nothing in the analysis below turns on it.

1. Confirmation of the exact patent number (no auto-correction)

Per the rule to interpret identifiers literally, the subject is US 10,896,589 B2 — app. 16/013,596, filed 2018-06-20, granted 2021-01-19, inventor Richard C. Carlson, assignee Metrom Rail, LLC, priority 2016-03-23. This is corroborated by the Google Patents text furnished in this matter and the Justia claim listing.

Excluded as a different number (per your "do not return similar numbers" instruction): the search surfaced US Application/Control No. 10/696,989 (Dane et al., Art Unit 2828, Notice of References, 2006). That is a 2003-vintage application number (10/696,989), unrelated to US 10,896,589. It is expressly not part of this analysis.

2. Critical limitation — I could not retrieve the authoritative "References Cited" list

I must be explicit here rather than fill the gap by inference:

• The authoritative full text furnished (Google Patents for US10896589B2) omits the front-page "(56) References Cited" block and truncates the description mid–PAD section. It does not contain the examiner citations.
• My USPTO/Web searches did not surface a PTO-892 / PTO-1449 or front-page citation list for US 10,896,589 specifically. Results for "10896589" returned other Metrom patents and other proceedings (e.g., IPR2023-00468/00470 on U.S. 8,812,227 and 9,043,131 — not this patent).

Consequence: I can identify only a small number of references with observable support, and I cannot certify that the list below is the complete § 102 citation set. I will not fabricate references to fill the examiner's list. Where confidence is less than high, I say so.

3. What is verifiable — the '089 patent family (NOT § 102 prior art against '089)

These appear as related applications / priority documents in the cross-citation tables. Because they share the same inventive entity (Carlson) and assignee (Metrom Rail) and '089 claims priority to them, they are not anticipatory prior art under the AIA § 102(b)(2)/(3) common-ownership and inventor-identity exceptions. Listing them only to prevent mischaracterization:

This family linkage is confirmed by the Google Patents "Continuation-In-Part" table entry (US 16/013,596 C-I-P of US10896589B2) observed on the US 10,336,353 B2 page.

4. References observed in cross-citation tables (candidate § 102 art) — with confidence flags

The following were the only references I could directly observe in association with US 10,896,589 B2. Direction caveat: Google Patents renders "Citations" (prior art cited by the patent) and "Cited By" (later patents citing it) in near-identical tables, and each observation below came from a search snippet, not the '089 page itself. I therefore flag direction and confidence explicitly.

Forward citations (patents citing '089 — not prior art to '089)

These were seen in "Cited By"-style tables and are later patents, i.e., not anticipatory art against '089:

• US 10,913,472 B2 — "Rail warning system and method" (Harsco Technologies LLC; priority 2015-07-17; granted 2021-02-09).
• Family member US 10,336,353 B2 cited above.

Nuance worth flagging on US 10,913,472 B2: although it is a forward-appearing reference, its effective filing date (2015-07-17) precedes '089's 2016-03-23 priority date. If the examiner had used it, it could qualify as § 102(a)(2) "secret prior art." I found no evidence it was cited against '089, so I do not assert it as an anticipatory reference — only note that it is the kind of same-field art that warrants a § 102(a)(2) check.

5. Anticipation (§ 102) analysis — and why most of it is § 103, not § 102

Claim 1 requires a single integrated article:

1. a safety vest configured for use by a worker;
2. a power supply powering vest components;
3. one or more antennas at least receiving wireless signals;
4. one or more circuits processing signals/data;
5. the antenna receiving wireless signals from one or more transmitting devices;
6. the circuits processing those signals, generating a safety alert, and providing alert indications to the worker.

For § 102 single-reference anticipation, one reference must disclose all of the above, arranged as claimed (i.e., the receiver functionality integrated into a safety vest). A reference that discloses only a belt-clip / pouch receiver for railroad workers would anticipate only if it fairly teaches vest integration.

Applied to the observed references:

• US 5,924,651 A ("Tactile and audible warning system for railroad workers") — on its face highly on-point (railroad worker receives radio warning; audible + tactile output; up to the acknowledgment-type functionality of claims 9/13). It is a plausible § 102 candidate against claim 1 only if it discloses the receiver integrated into a wearable vest with the claimed antenna/circuit architecture. I could not retrieve its text to verify that, so I cannot responsibly assert § 102 anticipation; the closer question is likely § 103 over this reference plus a garment-integration reference.
• US 2011/0127389 A1 ("Dual ultrasonic train detector") — appears directed to wayside/vehicle train detection, i.e., to the transmitter/companion-device side of the system (compare the WDU/VAD discussion in the '089 disclosure). As such it is more naturally § 103 art against the broader worker-protection context, and is unlikely to anticipate claim 1 (which is a vest-integrated receiver), absent a showing of vest integration.

Bottom line on § 102: On the record I could actually retrieve, I have no verified single reference that anticipates claim 1, and no verified reference–claim mapping for claims 2–13. The dependent claims (2 antenna arrangement; 4 front/sides/back; 5 diversity; 6 logging; 7–8 rechargeable/wireless-charge; 9 acknowledgment; 10–13 indicators) each recite well-known elective features; if a primary reference anticipates claim 1, those limitations are the natural basis for § 103 combinations rather than § 102.

6. Where the authoritative citation list must come from (recommended next step)

Because the searchable record did not yield the PTO-892, the defensible way to complete your requested "each patent citation" inventory is:

1. USPTO PatentCenter → app. 16/013,596 → File Wrapper → PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) and PTO-1449 (IDS) — this is the only authoritative source for examiner- and applicant-cited art.
2. Google Patents – "Citations" table on the US10896589B2 page (as distinct from "Cited By").
3. Espacenet/INPADOC "Cited documents" for the family.

7. Honest bottom line

• ✅ Confirmed I am analyzing US 10,896,589 B2 and excluded the look-alike number 10/696,989.
• ✅ Confirmed the family's priority references (US 10,179,595 B2, US 10,336,353 B2, provisional 62/605,486) and explained why they are not § 102 art.
• ⚠️ I could not retrieve the examiner's "References Cited" list; the only backward citations I could observe are US 5,924,651 A and US 2011/0127389 A1 (moderate confidence), plus same-field art such as US 10,913,472 B2 that is not shown to have been cited.
• ❌ I therefore cannot provide a verified per-reference § 102 claim map for claims 1–13, and I decline to invent one. Doing so properly requires the PTO-892 from app. 16/013,596's file wrapper.

If you can supply the front-page "References Cited" block or the prosecution file wrapper for 16/013,596, I will produce the full reference-by-reference table (citation, dates, description, and § 102/§ 103 claim mapping) at once.

I'll analyze obviousness under § 103. First, let me note what the provided record actually contains and pull concrete prior-art references I can cite.

I have the prior-art landscape. Let me confirm identifiers and dates for the key references before committing to combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,896,589 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Record limitation you need to know about first

The task directs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." The Google Patents page as furnished does not contain an enumerated prior‑art reference list. Its only "prior art" content is:

• Prior art keywords: worker, safety, alert, safety vest, protection system
• Prior art date: 2016‑03‑23

There are no cited U.S. patent documents, no foreign references, and no "References Cited" table in the fetched text. (Contrast, e.g., the (56) References Cited block that is visible on other patents in the same search set, such as US 8,141,174 and US 8,115,650.) I therefore cannot perform a "prosecution‑history‑faithful" § 103 analysis keyed to references the examiner actually cited in '089 — because that list is not present in the authoritative text I was given.

How I proceeded: I grounded the combinations below in (a) references whose bibliographic identity and grant dates I could verify in this session, and (b) the prior art actually deployed against sibling patents in the same Metrom family (the '595 and '709 IPRs), which is the closest thing to a prosecution‑accurate prior‑art record that exists. Anywhere I am inferring rather than quoting, I say so.

Cross‑reference check against prior generated sections: The earlier sections correctly flagged that claims beyond claim 14 were unverified, and that no litigation specific to '089 was found. Nothing in the new prior‑art evidence contradicts those findings. One item does sharpen them: the PTAB petitions I retrieved (e.g., ptacts.uspto.gov/.../1550883 and .../1550904) confirm Siemens/Hitachi/Humatics/Piper challenged the '595 and '709 system patents with Cross and Meyer‑Grisham, and that the Petitioner expressly described the '595 PAD/VAD/WDU architecture as "conventional." That is highly relevant here, because '089's vest is the receiver (PAD) element of that very architecture, moved into a garment.

1. Governing legal framework and the critical date

• § 103 framework: Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations), applied through the flexibility of KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
• Presumptive critical date: 2016‑03‑23 (earliest claimed priority, from Ser. No. 15/078,427). '589 is a CIP of Ser. No. 15/623,996 (filed 2017‑06‑15) and also claims benefit of provisional 62/605,486 (2017‑08‑15).
• Caveat on the date: because '089 is a continuation‑in‑part, only claims supported by the earlier disclosure get the 2016 date; new matter (e.g., the FIG. 5 vest specifics) may only be entitled to the 2017‑06‑15 or 2018 filing dates. For a conservative analysis I treat 2016‑03‑23 as the benchmark, and I flag any reference that only qualifies if the later dates apply.

2. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA here would be a radio‑frequency systems engineer or railway signaling/safety engineer with ~2–4 years' experience, familiar with: (i) short‑range wireless receiver design (antenna placement, diversity, body‑shadowing effects), (ii) railroad worker‑protection warning products (the Peruz/Pace/Meyer/Grisham lineage), and (iii) wearable/garment‑integrated electronics (smart PPE, high‑visibility vests with embedded LEDs, GPS, and antennas). This is a mechanical/electrical design space, not a biological or unpredictable one — which materially lowers the § 103 bar under KSR.

3. Claim 1 — the independent claim

3.1 What claim 1 requires (per the earlier summary)

A worker protection system comprising a safety vest carrying: (1) a power supply; (2) one or more antennas configured to at least receive wireless signals; and (3) one or more circuits that process the received signals, generate a safety alert, and output alert indication(s) to the worker. Signals come from peer transmitting devices (VAD/WDU‑type transmitters).

3.2 Proposed combination rendering claim 1 obvious

Combination 1A — primary + secondary:

Why this combination covers every element of claim 1:

• Safety vest + power supply + antennas + circuits → US 8,115,650 (vest, distributed antenna, visual/audible indicators) and Golle (vest power pack).
• Receive wireless signals from transmitting devices → Peruz/Pace (worker‑worn RF receivers tuned to a companion transmitter).
• Process signals → generate safety alert → output alert indication → Peruz (vibratory + flashing‑light warnings) / Pace (warning receiver).
• "Peer" transmitters (wayside/vehicle) → Peruz's track loop and Pace's crew‑placed probe are exactly the wayside/vehicle companion‑device model.

US 8,115,650's own summary states the wearable article may be a "clothing, vest, hard‑hat," and the antenna is distributed "so as to substantially surround a worker" — the precise physical arrangement that '089's FIG. 5 vest is claimed to achieve.

3.3 Motivation to combine (the KSR rationales)

A PHOSITA in 2016 had multiple, independent, cognizable reasons to put the Peruz/Pace‑style receiver into the vest of US 8,115,650:

1. Recognized problem in the art, with a known fix. '089 itself concedes the problem: receivers "may be placed in an area which is not optimum for receiving the warnings such as a pocket… may be dropped or lost without warning… may interfere with work." Moving a body‑worn radio into the garment the worker already must wear is the textbook KSR "known technique to address a known problem."
2. Body‑shadowing / line‑of‑sight incentive is expressly taught by the secondary reference. US 8,115,650 is directed to antenna distribution that surrounds the worker; '089's stated goal ("components… be within a 'line of sight'… without any part of the worker's body interfering") is the same objective, so the combination achieves a predictable, expected result (see KSR on "predictable results").
3. High‑visibility vests are mandatory PPE on the right‑of‑way — the combination is a mere substitution of one known housing location (clip/pocket) for another (garment), with no change in the principle of operation of the radio.
4. Industry trend / market pressure toward "smart PPE." The vests in US 8,141,174 (LED strips), US 2011/0148581 (antennas "fitted into sockets built into… high‑visibility vests"), and US 9,213,874 (reader + battery inside a vest) show a well‑traveled design direction, reinforcing obviousness.

Conclusion on claim 1: On this record claim 1 is prima facie obvious over Peruz or Pace in view of US 8,115,650, and a fortiori over that combination further in view of Golle.

4. Dependent claims 2–14 — element‑by‑element combinations

Date caveat: US 10,567,910, US 2019/0037934, and US 10,304,308 are useful only if the vest claims are not entitled to the 2016‑03‑23 date. They post‑date 2016‑03‑23 and should be treated as § 102(a)(2)‑style / later‑filing art or as evidence of the state of the art at the 2017–2018 CIP dates, not as 2016 prior art. The pre‑2016 references (Peruz, Pace, US 8,115,650, US 2011/0148581, US 8,141,174, US 7,624,952, Grisham, Meyer) do the real work under the 2016 date.

A note on Grisham/Meyer: these were used by Petitioners in the '595/'709 IPRs (ptacts.uspto.gov/.../1550904) to show that worker‑worn transponders receiving near‑range warnings from a train/wayside unit and producing "acoustic, optical or haptic" alerts were known. They reinforce claims 1, 2 and 13 here.

5. Consolidated motivation‑to‑combine statement

Under KSR, the motivation is supplied by all of the following, any one of which suffices:

1. Explicit problem statement in the art and in '089 itself — separate receivers are pocketed/dropped/lost and their antennas are body‑blocked; the fix (integrate into the garment the worker already wears) is known and predictable.
2. The secondary references are in the same field and address the same sub‑problem (US 8,115,650: antenna "surround[ing] a worker"; US 2011/0148581: 360°/spherical coverage) — combining them with a worker‑warning receiver ("reasonably pertinent to the particular problem," KSR).
3. KSR "predictable results" / "known technique" — moving electronics and antennas from a clip/pocket to a vest does not change the radio's principle of operation; it yields expected improvements (unobstructed aperture, no forgotten device, distributed weight).
4. Design incentives and market pressure — mandatory high‑visibility PPE plus the smart‑PPE trend (LED vests, eGPS vests, vest‑mounted antenna sockets).
5. The applicant's own family confirms the result was conventional — the '595 specification already said the PAD's housing "may be… integrated directly into a safety vest," and Petitioners characterized the PAD/VAD/WDU components as "conventional."

6. Counterarguments / where a patent owner would fight

• US 8,115,650 is a passive‑tag + machine‑mounted‑reader system — it does not teach a vest‑mounted receiver that processes signals and generates an alert. That is exactly why it cannot anticipate claim 1 and must be combined with Peruz/Pace/Grisham. A patent owner will argue no motivation to convert a passive‑tag safety vest into an active receiver; the rebuttal is the express '089 problem statement and the Peruz/Pace active‑receiver lineage.
• US 2011/0148581's vest carries a reader (transceiver), not a warning receiver — again a combination, not anticipation, argument; the motivation is the same "smart PPE" trend.
• Date vulnerability of the post‑2016 references (see caveat) — if the vest claims win the 2016‑03‑23 date, several otherwise handy references drop out.
• Secondary considerations — I found no evidence of non‑obviousness (no unexpected results, no licensing program tied to the vest claims, no long‑felt‑need evidence against the combination). Note the long‑felt need here cuts for obviousness: pocketed/lost receivers is a long‑recognized problem with an obvious garment‑integration fix.

7. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is prima facie obvious over Peruz US 5,924,651 or Pace US 6,471,162, each in view of US 8,115,650, optionally with Golle US 8,141,174.
• Claims 3–8 (any‑direction reception, front/side/back antennas, diversity, rechargeable, wireless recharge) are strongly met by US 2011/0148581 and US 8,115,650, with wireless recharge further supported by Nghiem as cited in the family's own PCT ISR.
• Claims 2, 6, 9–13 are met by routine‑design and field‑of‑endeavor combinations (Peruz/Pace/Grisham/Meyer/Golle; logging and acknowledgment per the family ISR).
• Claim 14 and any later claims remain unverified — the claim set was truncated in the earlier retrieval, so a complete § 103 opinion requires the full claim listing from the USPTO PatentCenter / the issued patent PDF.
• No litigation or IPR specific to '089 was located (consistent with the earlier section), but the sibling '595/'709 IPRs show the exact art (Cross; Meyer‑Grisham) that a challenger would likely deploy against '089's receiver‑in‑a‑vest claims.

Uncertainty flags (explicit): (i) the authoritative page contained no cited‑reference list, so this is not a prosecution‑history analysis; (ii) the exact effective filing date of the vest claims (CIP new‑matter question) is unresolved and changes which references qualify; (iii) claim 14+ text is unverified; (iv) I could not re‑verify the bibliographic details of Grisham, Meyer, Cross, Nghiem, Silverplus, and Sheardown individually within this session — their descriptions above rest on the IPR/ISR documents I retrieved, not on first‑hand reading of each reference.