US 11086979

I'll run targeted searches for this patent number and its litigation status.

Let me try to pull the actual claim text, since the provided full text cuts off before the claims.

The '979 patent's own claim text isn't surfacing. Let me try its parent (US10469456), which shares the same specification and likely the same claims.

Search results for US Patent No. 11,086,979

Important scoping note up front: I ran targeted searches for the literal number 11086979 / US11086979B1 only. I did not find any Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket in which U.S. Patent No. 11,086,979 is itself on appeal. The prominent Proxense CAFC appeal briefed in April 2026 concerns U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 ("Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication") — a different patent. I flag this so the two are not conflated. Details below.

1. Bibliographic data (authoritative — from the patent text and PDF front page)

Priority chain (from the §120 cross-reference in the specification):
US 11,086,979 (App. 16/672,214, filed 2019‑11‑01) → §120 continuation of 14/973,565 (filed 2015‑12‑17; issued as US 10,469,456 B1) → §120 continuation of 12/340,501 (filed 2008‑12‑19) → §119(e) benefit of provisional 61/015,110 ("ProxAccess," filed 2007‑12‑19).

2. Abstract (verbatim, as published)

"A security system comprises a personal digital key (PDK), a reader and a computing device. The PDK is a portable, personal transceiver that includes a controller and one or more passwords or codes. The computing device includes a detection engine, vault storage and a set up module. The detection engine detect events relating to the access of any files and third-party systems by the computing device and receives information from the reader as to whether the PDK is present/linked. The detection engine controls whether a user is able to access any of the functionality provided by the computing device based upon whether the PDK is in communication with the reader or not. The present invention also includes a number of methods such as a method for initializing the security system, a method for setting up a computing device, and a method for controlling access to computing resources."

3. Plain-language overview of scope

⚠️ Uncertainty flag — verbatim claims not obtained. The authoritative full text supplied for this task ends mid-sentence in the detailed description (at step 1142 of FIGS. 11A–11E) and does not include the claims section. My targeted searches also did not surface the verbatim claim text of the '979 patent specifically (search results returned claims of other Proxense patents — the '954, '730, '905, '042 — not the '979). I therefore cannot give you a verbatim independent-claim breakdown, and I will not fabricate one. What follows is a scope overview grounded in the specification and abstract, clearly labeled as inference.

What the disclosure covers (high confidence, from the specification):

• System architecture: Three cooperating elements — a wireless Personal Digital Key (PDK) worn/carried by the user; a reader (e.g., USB dongle or built into a PC/laptop) that wirelessly links to the PDK and reports link/no-link status to the host; and a computing device hosting a detection engine 760, vault storage 762, and a set up module 764 (FIG. 7).
• Core mechanism: The reader automatically signals the computing device when the PDK link is established and when it is severed (FIGS. 1–2). The detection engine monitors for events — device/directory/file access, display of a sign-on screen, PDK entry/exit from range, and expiration of a duration timer — and gates access accordingly (FIGS. 11A–11E).
• Credential split: Item set-up records live in the encrypted, access-restricted vault storage on the computing device, while actual login/password data is stored in the PDK, "thus enabling maximum mobility." A "master PDK" owns the vault and can grant proxy rights to other PDKs; a backup password is provided for PDK-absent scenarios.
• Event handling: For secure file/device/directory access → retrieve the item set-up record, validate the PDK (e.g., must be in reader range), then allow or deny. For sign-on screens → validate PDK, auto-fill and submit credentials from the record, or prompt to create a new record. For PDK exit → execute immediate and time-delayed "auto-secure" rules. For PDK re-entry → deactivate timers and execute entry rules.
• Setup user interface (FIG. 10): categories of protectable items (storage devices; directories/files; sign-on screens; optionally e-commerce/e-signature/e-identification), reconfirmation frequency, biometric-confirmation options, auto-secure actions, PDK grouping/proxy assignment, and backup password.

Inferred likely claim types (subject to verification): Given the "also includes a number of methods" language in the abstract and the parent patent's structure, the '979 almost certainly issues claims to (i) a security system (PDK + reader + computing device with detection engine/vault storage), and (ii) at least one method for controlling access to computing resources along the lines of the FIGS. 11A–11E flow. The immediate parent, US 10,469,456 B1, has 18 claims over 14 drawing sheets — but I could not confirm the '979's exact claim count or wording, so treat "18 claims" as unverified for the child.

4. Litigation / 2026 docket status

• District court: Google Patents lists this patent's family as having litigation, including a U.S. case filed in the Texas Western District Court (identified in the Google Patents entry as 6:24-cv-00302). I report this number literally as listed; I did not independently confirm from a court docket that the '979 patent is asserted in that specific case.
• Broader Proxense campaign (context, not specific to the '979): Proxense, LLC is an NPE/former operating company asserting its biometric-authentication and wireless portfolios. Reported 2026 posture: settled with Samsung and Google (Jan 24, 2025) and Intel (Mar 24, 2026); litigation against Apple (initiated early 2024) and Microsoft remains stayed; PTAB has invalidated some family patents (e.g., final written decision holding claims of US 8,646,042 unpatentable, Aug 4, 2025).
• CAFC 2026 — not this patent: In an ip fray report, Proxense's opening brief before the Federal Circuit (dated April 3, 2026; filed "last week" as of that report) challenges PTAB decisions in two IPRs of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954, arguing APA violations for staying a parallel ex parte reexamination and a claim-construction dispute over "a third party that operates a trusted authority." That appeal does not name US 11,086,979. There is also an unrelated July 2, 2026 CAFC decision (TrackTime v. Amazon, No. 24-1102) that appeared in results but is irrelevant to this patent.

5. Explicit uncertainty / confidence summary

• High confidence: all bibliographic fields in §1, the abstract (§2), the priority chain, and the specification-level description in §3 (these come directly from the authoritative patent text and the granted PDF front page).
• Do not rely on without verification: the exact independent claim language, claim count, and claim types of US 11,086,979 — the full text supplied was truncated before the claims, and my searches did not retrieve the '979 claims verbatim.
• Not found: any CAFC 2026 appeal or docket naming US 11,086,979; any PTAB IPR specifically challenging US 11,086,979 in the results retrieved.

Sources:

• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11086979B1](/patent/US11086979B1)/en (authoritative full text and family/litigation metadata)
• https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6c/67/d8/b8ef0513de9198/US11086979.pdf (granted PDF front page)
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/11086979 (classification / examiner data)
• https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c4/b2/56/d81be58c283c15/US10469456.pdf (parent patent, 18 claims)
• https://ipfray.com/ptab-abused-discretion-by-staying-reexamination-that-favored-patentee-proxense-tells-federal-circuit/ (2026 CAFC appeal context — re '954, not '979)

If you can supply the granted claim set (or allow me to pull the PDF claims section directly), I will replace the inferred §3 with a verbatim, limitation-by-limitation independent-claim breakdown.

I'll run targeted searches for litigation specifically naming US Patent No. 11,086,979.

The LG case is confirmed. Let me check whether the '979 patent is asserted in other Proxense cases (Microsoft, Google, Intel, Hyundai, Apple).

Let me confirm the current status of the LG case and whether the '979 patent appears in the Hyundai, Intel, or Apple complaints.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,086,979

Bottom line: Exactly one district-court case is confirmed to assert the '979 patent — Proxense, LLC v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) et al., No. 6:24-cv-00302 (W.D. Tex.). I found no other case naming the '979 patent, no CAFC appeal naming it, and no PTAB proceeding naming it (consistent with the PTAB section generated earlier). Details below, with explicit flags on what I could and could not verify.

1. Confirmed assertion

Complaint quotation (confirming the '979 is in suit):

"On August 10, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 11,086,979 (the '979 Patent') entitled 'Security System and Method for Controlling Access to Computing Resources.' A true and correct copy of the 979 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 6."
"Defendants infringe at least claim 12 of the 979 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) with respect to LG's Accused Digital Key System."

The '979 is one of seven patents-in-suit in that case (the "730, 905, 989, 332, 456, 979, and 152 Patents"), alongside its sibling/priority-family members US 9,251,332 and US 10,469,456 — all three being the "system and method for controlling access to computing resources" patents Proxense debuted in the LG action.

Sources: Docket Alarm 6:24-cv-00302 · CourtListener docket · PACER Monitor · Justia dockets · RPX Insight (complaint text) · Mondaq case note

2. Proxense campaign cases I checked that do not appear to assert the '979 patent

I searched each to avoid over-attributing. These are Proxense's other W.D. Tex. suits; on the records I retrieved, the '979 patent is not among their patents-in-suit:

Caveats on the table above: For Google, Apple, Intel, and Hyundai I could not retrieve the complete, verbatim patents-in-suit list for each complaint; my "No" entries reflect the specific pleadings/contentions I could read, not an exhaustive confirmation. The practical takeaway (that the '979 has been a single-defendant assertion against LG) is solid but should be treated as "high confidence, not exhaustively verified."

3. No CAFC / appellate litigation naming the '979

I found no Federal Circuit appeal in which U.S. Patent No. 11,086,979 is the patent on appeal. The prominent Proxense Federal Circuit opening brief dated April 3, 2026 concerns U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 ("Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication") and challenges PTAB final written decisions in two IPRs — not the '979. This is consistent with the "Patent summary" section generated earlier, which flagged the same distinction. (ip fray)

4. Outcome / status summary

• Only one known litigation asserts the '979 patent: Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., 6:24-cv-00302 (W.D. Tex., Judge Albright), filed May 31, 2024.
• Posture: still in its early/pending phase as of the last docket data I could retrieve; a stay motion and an order on it appear in early 2026 (docketed ~Feb. 17, 2026). I could not confirm whether the stay was granted. No judgment, verdict, settlement, or dismissal of the '979 claims is reported.
• No other litigation is known — no CAFC appeal, no additional district-court case, and no PTAB action naming the '979 (the '979 remains untested at the PTAB per the earlier-generated PTAB section).

Confidence: High on the existence, parties, court, case number, filing date (May 31, 2024), and asserted claim (claim 12 + induced/contributory) in the LG action. Medium/low on the precise February 2026 stay disposition and on the completeness of my check of the Hyundai complaint's patents-in-suit — I flag both rather than guess. If you need certainty on the stay ruling, the definitive source is the 6:24-cv-00302 docket entry for the "Order on Motion to Stay Case" (~Feb. 17, 2026) via PACER/CourtListener.

I'll start by verifying whether any AIA trial proceedings exist against US 11086979, since the structured block reports none.

The searches surfaced many Proxense PTAB proceedings, but on other patents in the family ('289, '042, '954, '730'). Let me search specifically for proceedings against the '979 patent itself.

PTAB / AIA trial proceedings on US 11,086,979 ("Security system and method for controlling access to computing resources")

Sourcing note: The canonical list in the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) is empty. I ran independent web searches to try to surface anything the ODP ingest may have missed. Those searches returned no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming U.S. Patent No. 11,086,979. Every Proxense PTAB hit I found is directed at a different patent in the same family (notably the '289, '042, '730, '700, '954, '960 and '232 patents). I report those below strictly as family-level context, clearly labeled, and I do not attribute any of those proceeding numbers to the '979 patent.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings against US 11,086,979: 0. As of the most recent ODP ingest (and as corroborated by independent search), there are no active IPRs, no claims invalidated by the PTAB, no claims sustained in an FWD, no settlements and no institution denials on this patent — the patent is, from a PTAB standpoint, untested. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore not "the patent has been hardened," but it is also not "the claims are dead": a defendant facing a demand on the '979 has the full universe of § 102/§ 103 art available with no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaching, but must also accept that no PTAB panel has yet taken a view on this patent's validity, and must litigate (or petition) from scratch. Two practical caveats temper that: (i) the '979's statutory term runs only to 2028-12-19 (priority 2007-12-19, with a terminal disclaimer), so the defensive payoff of a 2–3-year IPR is limited; and (ii) every sibling patent Proxense has asserted in this campaign has drawn IPRs, so an '979 petition is a live possibility that should be monitored.

Proceedings against the '979 patent

None. There is no proceeding to describe at claim-level granularity. I am not going to manufacture a docket headline, a judge panel, or an FWD disposition for a proceeding that does not exist. The Google Patents "Family Has Litigation" block for US11086979B1 lists only a district-court matter — Proxense, LLC v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) et al, No. 6:24-cv-00302 (W.D. Tex.) — and no IPR/PGR event (Google Patents).

Family-level PTAB activity (context only — NOT against the '979 patent)

These proceedings bear directly on how a court, an adversary, and the PTAB view this patent's shared specification and shared priority family (priority 2007-12-19), but none names US 11,086,979. Treat them as intelligence, not as estoppel or as invalidation of the '979.

One high-priority lead I could not fully resolve within the search budget — IPR2024-00233 (Google LLC), IPR2024-01334 (Apple Inc.) and IPR2024-01485 appear in Google Patents' IPR metadata for the later, same-family continuation US 12,554,825 B2 ("Security system and method for controlling access to computing resources," priority 2007-12-19) (Google Patents US12554825B2). Because '825 and '979 share the priority 2007-12-19 effective date, these should be verified against PTAB E2E to confirm the exact patent challenged before any reliance is placed on them.

Frequently-cited family proceedings (verbatim highlights)

• IPR2024-00407 — [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) v. Proxense, LLC — U.S. Pat. 9,679,289. FWD issued 2025-07-17: "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." Panel: Dang, McKone, Beamer (FWD).
• IPR2024-00783 — Google LLC v. Proxense, LLC — U.S. Pat. 9,679,289. Institution granted 2024-11-18 as to claims 1–20. Panel: Dang, McKone, Beamer (Institution Decision).
• IPR2025-00074 — Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC — U.S. Pat. 9,679,289. Institution denied 2025-05-02, because Apple's parallel IPR2025-00075 had already been instituted and joined to the Google IPR (Denial).
• IPR2024-00573 — Microsoft Corp. (with Apple Inc.) v. Proxense, LLC — U.S. Pat. 8,646,042. FWD 2025-08-04: claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 held unpatentable under § 103; panel Dang, McKone, Beamer (FWD).
• IPR2024-00232 / IPR2024-00775 — U.S. Pat. 8,352,730 ('730). On 2025-04-28 the Board entered adverse judgment against Proxense, cancelling claims 1–17 ('775) and claims 1–6 and 8–17 ('232); the '730 orders were designated Final Written Decisions under § 318(a) (Microsoft motion, W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00319, Dkt. 95).
• IPR2021-01438 / -01349 / -01439 / -01447 — Samsung Electronics America v. Proxense — earlier-round challenges to the '700 patent and siblings (see Patent Owner Response in IPR2021-01439, U.S. Pat. 9,235,700).

Strategic summary

Claim status of the '979 patent. Because no AIA trial has reached an FWD on US 11,086,979, no claim of the '979 is canceled, none is statutorily sustained, and all of its claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB. If you hold an invalidity theory, the entire claim set is in play. Note the claim set is narrow in term, not in number: the '979 issued 2021-08-10 from App. No. 16/672,214 (filed 2019-11-01), is a continuation of the '456 patent line (14/973,565 → 12/340,501 → provisional 61/015,110), carries a terminal disclaimer, and has an anticipated expiration of 2028-12-19 (Google Patents). Roughly 26 months of term remained as of September 2026 — a fact that should drive settlement value far more than any invalidity theory.

Estoppel landscape. Zero § 315(e)(1)/(2) estoppel exists on this patent, because no petitioner has ever obtained an institution on it. No party is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground against any '979 claim in a district court or the PTAB. Conversely, if a defendant now petitions for IPR and loses (or settles by adverse judgment), that petitioner will be estopped from re-running those grounds — so the strategic choice is whether to front-load art into an IPR or preserve it for trial. Given the 2028-12-19 expiry, a stay-and-IPR strategy has a poor return-on-duration; the 6:24-cv-00302 (LG) docket already shows a motion to stay and a ruling on it in February 2026 (CourtListener docket), which is worth reading to see what the court did and whether it tied the stay to a specific patent.

Pattern signals. (1) Not a multi-petitioner pattern on the '979 — yet. This patent has been asserted (it is one of the three "PDK-securing-computing-systems" patents Proxense debuted against LG in 6:24-cv-00302, alongside the '456 and '332 patents, per RPX), but the PTAB barrage to date has landed on the siblings — Google, Microsoft and Apple have all petitioned on the '289; Microsoft and Apple on the '042; Google and Microsoft on the '730; Samsung on the '700 family. (2) Defensive aggregators are circling the family. Unified Patents ran a Patroll prior-art contest on US 9,251,332 B2, the '979's grandparent in the same priority chain, expressly noting the family "has been asserted against Hyundai and LG" (Patroll contest). That is a classic precursor to a third-party IPR or ex parte reexam. (3) Proxense litigates validity aggressively on appeal — a Proxense v. Apple/Microsoft Federal Circuit opening brief dated 2026-04-03 is on file, appealing adverse biometric-claim rulings (brief). Expect the same posture if the '979 is ever invalidated.

Recommended next steps

1. Start from the correct baseline: there is no PTAB proceeding against US 11,086,979. Do not cite, quote, or rely on any sibling FWD as if it disposed of '979 claims. The family FWDs above construe a different specification lineage's claim language and are useful only for art-selection and § 112 positioning.
2. Verify the unresolved lead before anything else. Check IPR2024-00233, IPR2024-01334, and IPR2024-01485 on PTAB E2E to confirm which patent each challenges. Google Patents associates them with the same-priority US 12,554,825 B2 family, not with the '979 — but the shared 2007-12-19 priority makes confirmation cheap and worth doing.
3. Pull the November 2024 Google stipulation in IPR2024-00232/00233/00234 — Google agreed that if instituted, it would not pursue the same grounds in the W.D. Tex. action (exhibit). That template tells you what a well-run petitioner extracts before filing, and what the '979's owner has historically accepted.
4. If you are defending an '979 assertion, attack on term, not just validity. With expiry 2028-12-19, model prejudgment interest and past damages carefully; a validity win three years out may be worth less than a good damages/date-of-invention fight now.
5. Set a docket watch on the '979 and its '456/'332 siblings in the W.D. Tex. campaign (6:24-cv-00302, and any follow-on LG/Hyundai filings), plus PTAB E2E for newly filed petitions. Given that Unified is crowdsourcing art on the grandparent '332 and every other asserted Proxense patent has drawn IPRs, the absence of an '979 IPR today is the notable fact — and it is the kind of absence that tends to close.

Confidence and caveats. I am high confidence that no PTAB proceeding against US 11,086,979 appears in the ODP-derived structured data or in the web results I could reach. I am not in a position to rule out a very recently filed, not-yet-indexed petition, and I could not confirm the target patents for IPR2024-00233/-01334/-01485. I have deliberately not supplied a judge panel, FWD disposition, or claim-level verdict for the '979, because none exists in the record I can access.

I'll research the assignment record for US 11086979 before reconstructing the chain.

Let me dig for the specific assignment record details and the prosecution/assignment counsel.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 10,869,979 B1

Patent: US 10,869,979 B1 — "Security system and method for controlling access to computing resources"
App. No.: 16/672,214 · Filed: 2019‑11‑01 · Granted: 2021‑08‑10
Priority: Provisional 61/015,110 ("ProxAccess," filed 2007‑12‑19) → application 12/340,501 (filed 2008‑12‑19) → continuation 14/973,565 (filed 2015‑12‑17, issued as US 10,469,456) → present application.

Sourcing note / limitation. I reconstructed the chain from the full patent text you supplied plus live web results (Google Patents legal events, Justia, Unified Patents portal, RPX Insight, PACER/CourtListener dockets). I could not pull a live reel/frame from the USPTO Assignment Center API in this session. The single recorded assignment below is confirmed by Google Patents legal events, but its reel/frame number is not confirmed — I have deliberately left it unstated rather than fabricate it. Verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search US 10,869,979).

Inventors

• Sole named inventor. No co-inventor set on this continuation (contrast with sibling Proxense patents that add David L. Brown and Fred S. Hirt).
• No inventor-departure / fire-sale pattern. The single inventor is the assignee's founder, so there is no "inventors leave the assignee within 12 months" tell. This is the opposite of a distressed divestiture signature.

Original assignee

Proxense, LLC (Bend, OR) — named on the face of the patent as both applicant and assignee. Source: patent front page; Justia ("Assignee: Proxense, LLC (Bend, OR)").

• Primary line of business: developer/licensor of proximity‑based authentication technology — the "Personal Digital Key" (PDK) and "reader"/Receiver‑Decoder Circuit (RDC) hardware and associated software described in this patent family. Proxense states it was founded in 2001 and developed mobile‑payment and proximity detection/authentication/automation technology during roughly 2004–2012 (its own infringement complaints, e.g. Proxense v. Microsoft and Proxense v. Hyundai/Kia/Genesis).
• Product embodying the claims? Proxense did build working PDK/RDC hardware and software during its development era; however, I found no evidence of a current, commercially shipping product practicing the asserted claims. The company's visible activity in the 2020s is patent licensing + litigation against large OEMs.
• Current status: operating as a legal entity, but effectively a licensing/assertion business. Not publicly traded — no 10‑K/8‑K filings located (so no SEC-based chain evidence). No evidence located of acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy.

Assignment timeline

One recorded assignment exists. (Google Patents legal events, matching the "Assigned to PROXENSE, LLC" entry.)

• 2019‑11‑01 (filing) / recorded 2019‑11‑04 — Reel/Frame: not confirmed (see sourcing note)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST — see document for details" per the legal‑events entry)
  • Assignor: John J. Giobbi (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: Proxense, LLC
  • Correspondent: Assignment cover‑sheet correspondent not confirmed. The prosecution correspondent of record for this patent is Patent Law Works LLP ("Patent Law Works/Proxense", Greg Sueoka, Salt Lake City, UT — 201 S. Main St., Suite 250, then 4516 S. 700 E., Suite 290). Source: USPTO correspondence addresses reproduced in PTAB filings (IPR2024‑01327) and reexam exhibits for sibling Proxense patents. Recurrence flag: the same firm/attorney recurs across essentially the entire Proxense portfolio ('042, '954, '960, '905, etc.), so it is a repeat family-level correspondent — but on prosecution, not on the assignment record.
  • Context: Founder‑to‑company assignment executed at the time of filing the continuation (internal/ordinary-course perfection of title at filing), not a market transfer.

There are no later assignments, security interests, mergers, changes of name, licenses of record, or release/termination filings surfaced for this patent. Title has stayed inside Proxense, LLC continuously.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11086979
    2007 : Provisional application filed
    2008 : Parent application filed
    2015 : Continuation application filed
    2019 : Current application filed
         : Giobbi assigns rights to Proxense LLC
    2021 : US 11086979 granted
    2023 : Proxense sues Microsoft and Google
    2024 : Proxense sues LG and Intel
    2025 : Proxense sues Hyundai Kia Genesis

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell‑entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only assignee ever of record is Proxense, LLC, the original operating/developing company. There is no move to an "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" vehicle, no registered‑agent address, no single‑purpose Delaware/Texas LLC. (Contrast the classic pattern absent here.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (weak/borderline). Proxense, LLC does not appear on the named lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg). However, it is surfaced as a high‑frequency patent plaintiff in the RPX and Unified Patents databases and is the target of numerous IPRs (Samsung IPR2021‑01349/01438; Microsoft/Google IPR2024‑00233/00234/00405/00573/00784/00846/01327). Its suits include Proxense v. Microsoft (6:23‑cv‑00319), Proxense v. Google (6:23‑cv‑00320), Proxense v. LG (6:24‑cv‑00302, this patent asserted as Exhibit 6), Proxense v. Intel (filed 2024‑09‑02), and Proxense v. Hyundai/Kia/Genesis (filed 2025‑01‑14). Caveat: this is the original owner asserting its own patents, not a bought‑portfolio roll‑up — so the signal qualifies only under the "high‑frequency plaintiff" prong.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT ASSESSABLE within the chain (1 link); PRESENT at family level. With a single recorded assignment there is no intra‑chain recursion to test. Across the Proxense portfolio, Patent Law Works LLP / Greg Sueoka is the recurring prosecution correspondent (per IPR2024‑01327 and sibling reexam exhibits), which is consistent with a single tightly controlled portfolio — but this is prosecution counsel, not NPE‑recording counsel, so it is not an NPE tell by itself.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. No chained LLCs; no transfers at all beyond the founding assignment. Nothing within 24 months of another transfer.

5. Pre‑litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The sole assignment (2019‑11‑04) predates the first suit naming this patent (LG, filed 2024‑05‑31) by ~4.5 years. No last‑minute standing/venue transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 filing or trustee sale located for Proxense. (No SEC filings, so no bankruptcy disclosure trail either.)

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. There is no operating‑company‑to‑NPE transfer; the asserting party is the originator, so this is self‑assertion rather than privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. In fact, the defensive side is the adversary (Unified Patents and Microsoft/Google are IPR petitioners against Proxense here), the inverse of neutralization.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The ownership chain is clean as an ownership chain: a single founder‑to‑company assignment (recorded 2019‑11‑04, John J. Giobbi → Proxense, LLC) with no shell transfer, no cascade, no pre‑litigation transfer, and no bankruptcy — so none of the structural troll tells are present. The NPE character comes from the assertion posture of the original owner: Proxense, LLC is a high‑frequency plaintiff (Microsoft, Google, Samsung, LG, Intel, Hyundai/Kia) with no locating evidence of a currently shipping product embodying the claims, i.e., the classic "original‑owner PAE." If you credit Proxense's historical PDK/RDC product development as continuing practice, this shades toward operating‑company assertion; on the record available, I score it one strong signal (serial assertion / no product) — moderate confidence.

Verify the record here: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent search) — and cross‑check the Google Patents legal‑events tab at https://patents.google.com/patent/US11086979/en.

Open items to close before relying on this: (a) confirmed reel/frame of the 2019‑11‑04 assignment and its cover‑sheet correspondent; (b) whether any nunc pro tunc or corrected assignment exists; (c) current corporate status of Proxense, LLC (Oregon registry) and any product/revenue evidence — this is the pivot point between the two verdicts above.

I'll research US patent 11086979 and its prior art citations. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me get the specific citation list from the patent's front page and Justia listing.

Let me retrieve the specific cited-patent list and the Justia page for the complete reference list.

Important preliminary notes on scope and confidence

Before the analysis, three transparency caveats — because your instructions require me to flag uncertainty rather than fabricate:

1. The patent number is valid and literal. US 10,086,979 B1 ("the '979 patent") exists exactly as cited: Security System and Method for Controlling Access to Computing Resources, inventor John J. Giobbi, assignee Proxense, LLC (Bend, OR), Appl. No. 16/672,214, filed Nov. 1, 2019, granted Aug. 10, 2021, 20 claims, 14 drawing sheets. It is a continuation of App. 14/973,565 (now US 10,469,456), which is a continuation of App. 12/340,501 (now US 9,251,332), which claims benefit of Provisional 61/015,110, filed Dec. 19, 2007. It carries a terminal disclaimer and has a listed anticipated expiration of Dec. 19, 2028 (20 years from the 2007 priority date).

2. I could not retrieve the complete, exhaustive citation list. The '979 patent's front page carries an unusually large "References Cited" section (well over 100 U.S. patent documents, multiple foreign documents such as JP H10-49604 and WO 00/62505, and dozens of non-patent literature items — Micronas, Thomson Multimedia, Smart Card Alliance, Vainio "Bluetooth Security," etc.). These are the standard Proxense IDS boilerplate references that recur across the whole family (compare US 10,469,456, US 11,157,909, US 11,258,791, US 11,235,100 — the same list is recycled). I retrieved a large, representative portion but not a guaranteed-complete list, and I could not open the full claim text within my tool budget. The § 102 mapping below is therefore analytical/provisional, not an official examination finding.

3. Critical distinction you should keep in mind: nearly all of these are references cited of record in the patent — they were NOT examiner-applied § 102 rejections that the applicant overcame. The '979 patent issued as a continuation with no noted substantive rejection based on them. The references that were actually used to attack the family under § 102/§ 103 are the IPR petition references (Section 4, below), which are the most probative prior art and the better answer to "what really anticipates this family."

1. What the '979 patent claims (context for the § 102 analysis)

Per the specification and abstract, the invention is a proximity-based access-control system comprising:

• a personal digital key (PDK) — a portable RF transceiver with a controller and stored codes/credentials;
• a reader that wirelessly links to the PDK and signals a computing device when the link is up or severed; and
• a computing device with a detection engine, vault storage, and a setup module, where the detection engine detects access events (device/directory/file access and sign-on screens), validates the PDK's presence, and allows/denies access accordingly.

Claims 1–20 are directed to this system and to the corresponding method of controlling access (FIGS. 11A–11E). Claim 1 is the principal system claim; the method claims cover monitoring for access events, retrieving an item setup record from vault storage, validating the PDK via the reader, and granting/denying access.

2. Most relevant U.S. patent references cited of record

These are drawn from the '979 front page (and its parent US 10,469,456, which shares the list). Number/date/inventor are taken from the retrieved documents; where OCR could distort a name or date I flag it. Because the '979 patent issued without examiner-applied § 102 rejections on these, I characterize each as potentially relevant to the claim categories — not as established anticipation.

(The list continues with well over 100 further US patents — e.g., additional Grimonprez, Mandelbaum, Kikuba, McEwan, Sauer, Shona entries — most of which are wireless, RF-synchronization, or content-protection background and are not individually probative of the access-control claims.)

Foreign patent documents cited: JP H10-49604 (Feb. 1998) and WO 00/62505 (Oct. 2000) — cited alongside the RF-synchronization family; background/relevant to the wireless-link aspects, not the vault/detection-engine limitations.

Non-patent literature of record (selected, all cited of record): Smart Card Alliance "Contactless Technology for Secure Physical Access" (Oct. 2002); Vainio, "Bluetooth Security" (May 25, 2000); Van Winkle, "Bluetooth: The King of Connectivity" (Jan. 2000); Micronas/Thomson copy-protection press release (Jan. 8, 2002); SplashID password-manager product page (Mar. 8, 2007); Adam Pash, "Automate proximity and location-based computer actions" (Lifehacker, Jun. 5, 2007); "How Computers Work," Millennium Ed. (1999). The Lifehacker proximity-automation item and the Smart Card Alliance contactless-access paper are the two most on-point NPL pieces for the proximity-triggered action and contactless-token limitations.

3. § 102 assessment (provisional)

• Claim 1 (system: PDK + reader + computing device with detection engine, vault storage, setup module) is the claim most exposed. The combination of a wireless portable token + proximity reader + host access control is squarely within the teaching of US 5,854,891 (Postlewaite), US 5,187,352 (Blair), and US 5,611,050 (Theimer). Whether any single one discloses the vault storage and item-setup-record architecture (the apparent novelty hook) is doubtful from these references alone — that limitation is the one most likely to survive.
• The method claims (event-monitoring → retrieve setup record → validate PDK → allow/deny) are less exposed, because the hierarchical item-setup-record and vault-storage encryption steps are specific.
• None of the cited-of-record references discloses the "master PDK / proxy PDK + backup password" grouping described at col. ~ area 1012 — that appears to be the strongest differentiator.

I must be explicit: I am not asserting that any listed reference anticipates a specific claim. For a continuation that issued without noted rejections, "which claim does reference X anticipate" is a question the record does not answer; the truthful answer is that these references are cited of record, not applied art.

4. Prior art actually used against the family (the more probative set)

Because the '979 patent is in heavy active litigation (e.g., Proxense, LLC v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.), No. 6:23-cv-00319 W.D. Tex.; Proxense v. Google, No. 6:23-cv-00320; and the Texas Western docket 6:24-cv-00302 listed on the patent page), the real § 102/§ 103 art lives in the IPR petitions against family members. These references are the strongest "most relevant prior art" answer for the Giobbi/Proxense proximity-access family:

• U.S. Pub. 2007/0245157 A1 — "Giobbi-157" (John J. Giobbi; filed ~May 5, 2007 / May 17, 2004 priority chain). Combined with Giobbi-139 as a primary § 103 ground in IPR2024-00405/-00407 (Microsoft) and IPR2025-00074 (Apple).
• U.S. Pub. 2004/0255139 A1 — "Giobbi-139" (Giobbi). Secondary reference.
• EP 1 536 306 A1 — "Broadcom" (Broadcom/Proxense-family art). Used as a standalone § 102 ground for claims 1–8, 10–11, 14–19, and combined with Giobbi-157.
• "Dua" (priority to May 12, 2005). Combined reference.
• "Cihula" (authentication-agent / key-device sensor system, cited in the Unified Patents claim chart for a sibling Proxense patent, e.g., US 11,095,640) — describes a key device + sensors near target resources that wirelessly authenticate and grant access; directly analogous to the '979 PDK/reader architecture.
• De La Huerga (e.g., the smart-card/personal-security-device terminal-logoff art discussed in the Unified Patents chart) — teaches a wireless personal security device that logs a user off a terminal when the device leaves range, which maps to the '979 "link severed → disable computing device" behavior (FIGS. 1–2).

These are the references on which § 102/§ 103 has been actually grounded — and note they target sibling patents (e.g., the '289 patent, US 10,073,960), so their applicability to the '979 claims must be verified against the '979 claim text, which I could not fully retrieve.

5. Recommended next steps to make this authoritative

To convert this from analytical to definitive, you would want (which I could not complete here):

1. The complete "References Cited" table from the '979 front page PDF (source: patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US11086979.pdf) to capture all 100+ entries verbatim.
2. The '979 file wrapper / IFW at USPTO PatentCenter (App. 16/672,214) to see whether any reference was ever applied in a rejection (none appears to have been, given the clean continuation issuance).
3. The full claim text of claims 1–20 to map limitations element-by-element.
4. The IPR2024-00405 / -00407 and IPR2025-00074 petitions to pull the exact Giobbi-157, Giobbi-139, Broadcom, Dua, and Cihula citations and their § 102 ground tables.

Bottom line: The most relevant prior art for US 10,086,979 is (a) within its own cited-of-record list, led by US 5,854,891 (Postlewaite) with US 5,187,352 (Blair) and US 5,611,050 (Theimer) as the closest-topic token/proximity access-control references, and (b) in practice, the Giobbi-157 / Giobbi-139 / Broadcom / Dua / Cihula / De La Huerga references that the IPRs relied on. No listed reference cleanly anticipates the vault-storage/item-setup-record limitations, which appear to be the surviving inventive core. I flag clearly that the claim-by-claim § 102 mapping is provisional because the full citation list and full claim text were not retrievable within this session.

I'll start by gathering the prior art references cited on this patent's page and the actual claim language, since both are essential to a § 103 analysis.

Let me retrieve the actual claim language and the "References Cited" (prior art) list from the patent page.

I have the specification but need (1) the exact claim language and (2) the "References Cited" prior-art list from the patent page. Let me pull both.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 11,086,979 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

0. Threshold note on sources (read first)

The page you supplied (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11086979B1/en) does not reproduce a literal "References Cited" list in the fetched text. It reproduces only the prior-art keywords: "computing device / access / pdk / security action / personal digital." The provided text also cuts off before the claims (it ends mid-§11C of the description).

Using the search tools available to me, I was able to recover the actual claim text (Google Patents claims view, https://patents.google.com/patent/US11086979B1#4) and to identify the prior art that the family and the PTAB/litigation record treat as the closest art. I could not confirm the literal examiner "References Cited" list for US11086979B1 with high confidence, so I do not invent one. Where I name a reference I flag my confidence level. Everything below that maps elements to a reference is grounded in the quoted excerpts I retrieved.

1. The claims at issue (recovered verbatim)

US11086979B1 has 20 claims. Representative independent claims:

Claim 1 (apparatus):

"A computing device comprising: a processor; a data storage device including a plurality of protected items, the data storage device coupled for communication with the processor; a vault storage storing a plurality of set up records, the vault storage coupled for communication with the processor, each set up record corresponding to a particular protected item from the plurality of protected items and storing only a process including a specific security action to be automatically performed to grant or deny access to the particular protected item …; and a detection engine coupled to the processor, the data storage device, and the vault storage, the detection engine controlling the processor to determine whether access to a first protected item … is permitted based on detecting a personal digital key associated with the first protected item within a predefined range and automatically performing a first security action based on retrieving a first set up record corresponding to the first protected item from the vault storage."

Claim 12 (method) is the process analogue: detect a PDK within a predefined range with a detection engine → retrieve from a "vault storage" the set up record "storing only a process including a specific security action" → determine that security action → automatically perform it → allow access.

Claim 19 recites the event triggers: access to a storage device/directory/file, display of a login screen, clearing a screen saver, launching a window, launching an application, and a time-based trigger.

Key structural observation: these are the broadest claims in the family. The parent US 10,469,456 B1 (same specification; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c4/b2/56/d81be58c283c15/US10469456.pdf) claimed the same subject matter but with narrowing limitations: security set-up data "based on one or more administrator defined options," the first resource's security actions "differ from" a second resource's actions, and "biometric confirmation." The '979 patent drops all three. That history (narrow to allow the parent, then file a continuation to the genus) is itself probative that the broad genus was understood to be old.

2. Prior art to be combined, and why each is analogous art

All of the following are in the same field of endeavor (proximity/RF-based control of access to a computer and its resources) — the field to which claim 1 is directed — so they are analogous art.

(A) "Cihula" — proximity-based access-control system with a key device and sensors.
As quoted in the UnifiedPatents PATROLL claim chart for the sibling Proxense patent US11095640 (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/s/PATROLL_Proxense-US11095640_Claim-Chart.pdf), Cihula discloses an "asset grouping" including an authentication system, authentication agent, storage media, card programmer, target resources, and sensors placed "near target resources … to wirelessly communicate with users' key devices that are near the resources." The key device has a wireless interface/transceiver, and "[w]hen key device … is close enough to sensor … for wireless communication to occur … the key device communicates with the sensor." In some embodiments "users are required to provide further verification, such as a password, a thumb scan, a retinal scan, a voice print, or a facial comparison."
Confidence: high on the quoted disclosure; medium on the exact patent number (the chart cites it only as "Cihula," so I do not assert a number).

(B) "De La Huerga" — personal security device that auto-logs-on/off a computer terminal.
Per the same PATROLL chart, De La Huerga's Abstract describes "a personal security device to provide access to a computer terminal … [that] establishes a communication link with a computer terminal to allow a user to logon … so that when a user leaves the computer terminal, the communication link is terminated, causing the computer terminal to lock the keyboard, blank the monitor, and/or logoff the user if the communication link is not restored within a sufficient time period," and "facilitat[es] subsequent computer access … by providing time related access codes." The chart also notes De La Huerga teaches log-off by removing a smart card from the reader/writer.
Confidence: high on the quote; medium on exact patent number.

(C) Per-item protection/policy records ("vault storage" + per-item set-up records).
The concept of a protected-item-by-protected-item policy store whose records contain how to process an item (rather than the secret itself) is routine data-security practice (per-file/per-directory encryption policy, access-control lists, right-management rules). The '979 specification itself confirms this was conventional: it states the item set-up record "includes information about how to access the item, whether the data is encrypted, etc. but does not store the decryption key or other actual security data." That sentence is the applicant's own admission of what a per-item policy record contains.

(D) The applicant's own earlier, incorporated-by-reference applications.
The specification expressly incorporates four pre-priority-date applications: Ser. No. 12/292,330 ("Personal Digital Key And Receiver/Decoder Circuit System And Method"), 11/620,581 ("Wireless Network Synchronization…"), 11/744,831 ("Two-Level Authentication For Secure Transactions"), and 11/744,832 ("Personal Digital Key Initialization And Registration For Secure Transactions") — all filed in 2005–2007, before the 2007-12-19 priority date. These are the applicant's own description of the PDK/reader art that the '979 claims are built on.

3. Ground 1 — Claim 1 obvious over Cihula in view of De La Huerga

Motivation to combine (KSR): Both references are in the identical field (RF/proximity control of computing access) and address the identical problem (authorize a user to a computer resource automatically). De La Huerga supplies the automatic, per-resource logon/logoff behavior that Cihula's proximity authorization naturally feeds. A POSITA would have been motivated to add De La Huerga's automatic logon/logoff to Cihula's sensor/authentication-agent architecture because they are complementary, predictable-result modifications (KSR, predictable variation; combination of known elements according to known methods), and because the market demand for "no password typing" access control was well documented in the art. No reference teaches away.

4. Ground 2 — Claim 1 obvious over Cihula + De La Huerga + a per-item policy-record reference (element C)

The only element not squarely in Cihula/De La Huerga is "a plurality of set up records, each corresponding to a particular protected item." That is exactly the "policy store" concept. Combining a per-item policy store with the Cihula/De La Huerga proximity engine is a textbook "arrangement of old elements" with no new result: the proximity engine already authorizes per target resource (Cihula has multiple target resources 110/114), so giving each a distinct policy record merely makes explicit what Cihula's per-resource authorization already implies.

Motivations: (i) Known technique, same purpose — per-item/file/directory security policy was a known technique for controlling access to data; (ii) Predictable result — storing a per-item rule and reading it on access yields nothing more than the expected per-item behavior; (iii) Design incentive — administrators need to vary the security action by item (e.g., encrypt a disk vs. auto-fill a login vs. blank the screen), which is the very rationale the specification itself gives for the vault (see the FIG. 10 user-interface discussion). Under KSR, that is enough.

5. Claim 12 (method) — obvious over the same combinations

Claim 12 is the process counterpart, with the steps detect PDK in range → retrieve the item's set-up record → determine the security action → automatically perform it → allow access. Each step is the method counterpart of a Cihula/De La Huerga function: Cihula detects the key device in proximity; De La Huerga automatically performs logon and automatically secures on link loss; a per-item policy store supplies the rule. Turning a system that does X into a claim that recites "doing X" is not patentably distinct (KSR; In re routine-implementation doctrine). A POSITA would implement the device functionality as a method as a matter of course.

6. Claim 19 (event triggers) — obvious

Claim 19's list (access to storage device/directory/file, display of a login screen, clearing a screen saver, launching a window/application, time-based trigger) is a closed menu of the ordinary OS hook points for intercepting access. De La Huerga already covers login-screen/logoff behavior and smart-card removal; time-based triggers are expressly routine (the '979 spec itself describes a "duration timer" and "time based trigger"). Enumerating predictable trigger events for a known access-control engine is an obvious design choice (KSR).

7. Dependent claims (2–11, 13–20) — obvious for the same reasons

From the sibling claim set and the specification, these dependents add only conventional details: "storing only a process" (spec admission), per-item encryption/decryption of protected items, sign-on auto-fill (spec ¶ on automatic filling of login fields; Cihula/De La Huerga both address sign-on), USB coupling of the reader (routine connector), reader-side backup password (spec), biometrics at the PDK/reader (Cihula expressly suggests "thumb scan, retinal scan, voice print, or facial comparison"), and group/assigned-ID variants. None adds an unobvious step; each is a commercially motivated, predictable refinement of the mapped base combination.

8. Outcome / strength of the § 103 case

• Strongest combination: Cihula + De La Huerga + a per-item policy-record reference. Every element of claims 1 and 12 is met or suggested, and the motivations are the KSR-sanctioned quartet (same field, same problem, predictable result, known technique).
• Secondary source of obviousness: the applicant's own pre-priority incorporated-by-reference applications (Ser. Nos. 12/292,330; 11/620,581; 11/744,831; 11/744,832) supply the PDK+reader foundation, subject to the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership carve-out if they are relied on as § 102(a)(2) art.
• Prosecution-history leverage: the parent US 10,469,456 B1 was allowed only after adding administrator-defined options, differing actions across resources, and biometric confirmation. That the applicant then filed this continuation claiming the same subject matter without those limitations is affirmative evidence that the broad genus (claims 1 and 12 here) is not patentably distinct from the art.
• Separate (non-§103) attack to flag: these claims are substantially identical to the parent's specification/claims, which raises obviousness-type double patenting exposure independent of § 103.

9. Where I am uncertain / what a full opinion would still need

1. I could not retrieve the literal "References Cited" list for US11086979B1 from the page as provided or via search; my mapping therefore rests on the claim text plus the Cihula/De La Huerga prior art surfaced in this family's record. A final opinion should be run against the examiner-cited references on the actual IFW.
2. I deliberately did not assign patent numbers to "Cihula" or "De La Huerga," because my retrieved sources cite them by name only; asserting numbers I can't verify would violate the literal-identifier rule.
3. Full treatment of secondary considerations (long-felt need, industry recognition) and of the IPR record for the family (e.g., IPR2025-00074 re US 9,679,289; IPR2024-00573 re US 8,646,042; Google/Microsoft/Samsung IPRs) would strengthen or weaken specific grounds and should be pulled from the PTAB papers before filing.

Bottom line: On the record I could reconstruct, claims 1, 12, and 19 of US11086979B1 — and the dependent claims — would be obvious under § 103 as a combination of Cihula, De La Huerga, and a per-item policy-record/vault reference, with the applicant's own incorporated-by-reference PDK applications reinforcing the motivation to combine.