US 11863223

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number, including litigation/docket activity.

Let me run targeted searches on the assignees, the noted litigation, and the CAFC docket.

US Patent 11,863,223 — Analyst Summary

Confidence note up front: The bibliographic data, claims and specification below are taken from the authoritative full text supplied from Google Patents (fetched 2026‑09‑19, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11863223](/patent/US11863223)/en). Litigation items come from secondary aggregators (Google Patents litigation links; Ex Parte AI Lab case pages for W.D. Tex. 7:26‑cv‑00056). I could not directly query USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or PACER, and I found no CAFC docket for this patent. Treat the litigation items as provisional and verifiable-at-source.

1. Bibliographic data

Family / prosecution chain (all share the 2017‑05‑25 priority):

• 15/989,033 → US 10,469,119 (2018‑05‑24; first filing of the invention)
• 16/581,596 → US 11,101,838 (2019‑09‑24)
• 17/443,183 → US 11,863,223 (this patent; a divisional of 16/581,596)
• Later continuations: US 12,052,044; US 12,081,257; US 12,388,482; US 12,224,788; US 12,191,902; US 2025/0350310 A1 (pending)

False-positive collisions on the bare ID "11863223" (flagged because identifiers must be read literally): the string also matches (a) European application EP 11863223 A (an elevator device, priority 2011‑04‑05) and (b) PMID 11863223 (a 2002 pathology paper). Neither is this patent; they are unrelated records sharing the same digits.

2. Abstract (as issued)

A case for an electronic device, where the device has a receiver coil for wireless charging formed between an inner circle and an outer circle, includes a hard protective frame constructed to receive the device (the frame having a recess facing the device) and a metal plate constructed to be received in the recess. The metal plate enables magnetic retention/attachment of the case to a support having a magnet, has a rounded concave edge, and does not overlap the inner circle. Preferably the rounded concave edge, inner circle and outer circle are substantially symmetrical with respect to the same line.

3. Technology in plain language

Conventional magnetic car mounts use a ferromagnetic plate stuck on the back of a phone or case. That plate sits over the phone's wireless‑charging receive coil and blocks the charging field. The invention reshapes the plate — giving one side a rounded concave (notched‑in) edge — and positions it so the notch clears the center of the charging coil while the remaining plate area still gives the magnet something to grab. The spec reports bench data (Table 1): no case = 170–250 mA (avg 210 mA); the FIG. 4B plate configuration = 90–230 mA (avg 190 mA); a FIG. 4C configuration = 40–180 mA (avg 80 mA), i.e., the "rounded concave edge" placement preserves substantially more charging current than an alternative plate geometry. The spec also discloses a two‑part case (soft TPU cover 10 + hard polycarbonate frame 20), a surrounding recess (28) that relieves the recess boundary line on the visible outer surface and prevents the plate from scratching the phone, and a support (40) with a magnet (50) whose body/legs let the case stand or clip onto a vehicle air‑vent.

4. Claim set — independent claim analysis

The patent has 10 claims and exactly one independent claim (claim 1). Claims 2–10 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1.

Claim 1 — case for an electronic device (the only independent claim). In plain terms, it requires:

1. A protective cover that receives the electronic device;
2. A metal plate between the protective cover and the electronic device;
3. The metal plate is itself a magnet that produces magnetic flux (note: the claim recites a magnet, not a ferromagnetic/steel plate — the spec's ordinary ferromagnetic embodiments are not what claim 1 covers);
4. The plate is positioned so magnetic waves substantially pass through the area formed by the inner boundary of the receiver coil; and
5. The plate does not overlap the orthographic parallel projection of the area formed by the inner boundary of the receiver coil.

The preamble recites the environment: the electronic device has a receiver coil for wireless charging constructed within it, the coil lying between an inner boundary and an outer boundary.

Dependent claims (brief):

• 2 — inner and outer boundaries are substantially circular.
• 3 — metal plate has a rounded concave edge.
• 4 — the rounded concave edge substantially symmetrically aligns with the orthographic projections of the inner and outer boundaries onto the plate's projection plane.
• 5 — the rounded concave edge at least partially overlaps the projection of the outer boundary.
• 6 — the rounded concave edge lies outside the projection of the outer boundary.
• 7 — plate is substantially rectangular, one side having the rounded concave edge, with second/third/fourth sides parallel in pairs.
• 8 — plate has rounded corners.
• 9 — plate is substantially trapezoidal with the rounded concave edge on the shorter of two parallel sides, rounded corners.
• 10 — plate attached to the protective cover by an adhesive.

Claim‑drafting observation: the specification describes several additional independent aspects (a metal plate per se; a magnetic mount comprising case + support with magnet; a magnetic mount with the plate affixed to the back of a case or directly to the device). Those aspects appear in the specification and in sibling family members, but the issued claims of US 11,863,223 contain only the single independent claim above — claim 1 is narrower than the specification's broadest disclosure in one respect (it requires the plate to be a flux‑producing magnet) and broader in another (it does not require the "hard protective frame" or "recess" of the FIG. 4/11 embodiments, though the abstract and the sibling '119 patent do).

5. Litigation / docket status (as searchable on 2026‑04‑26)

• District court (2026): The patent record itself carries a "Family has litigation" flag pointing to W.D. Tex. Case No. 7:26‑cv‑00056. Aggregator reporting identifies this as Magnova LLC v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), W.D. Tex., cause of action "Patent Infringement," nature of suit 830, filed 2026‑02‑19, status open (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/7:26-cv-00056/magnova-llc-v-apple-inc). The complaint analysis page states that the suit asserts US 11,863,223 (the '223 patent) and US 10,469,119 (the '119 patent) against "MagSafe‑compatible" iPhone cases, with claim 1 treated as the representative independent claim (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/7:26-cv-00056/doc/analysis/1). The complaint's Exhibits 2 and 4 (claim charts) were, per that analysis, not included with the filed complaint, and specific accused models were deferred to infringement contentions.
  • Uncertainty: I did not verify this docket directly in PACER/CM‑ECF. I also could not confirm the chain of title from the recorded assignee (Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd.) to the named plaintiff Magnova LLC; the aggregator's "Patent Owner" field is blank.
• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no Federal Circuit appeal docket involving 11,863,223 or case 7:26‑cv‑00056. Searches for CAFC 2026 activity returned only unrelated 2026 opinions (e.g., In re Incept LLC) and PTAB briefing. Accordingly I cannot report any appellate proceeding for this patent; if one exists it is not visible in the sources available to me.
• Earlier, related litigation (different patents, same proprietor): Spigen Korea's US 9,049,283 and design‑patent suits (e.g., Spigen Korea Co. v. iSpeaker Co., C.D. Cal. 8:15‑cv‑01050 and 2:16‑cv‑08559; Spigen Korea Co. v. Ultraproof, Inc., C.D. Cal. 2:16‑cv‑09185 / 2:17‑cv‑01161; CAFC Nos. 2019‑1435 and 2019‑1717). These concern the '283 slide‑cover patent, not the '223 magnetic‑mount patent, and should not be conflated with it.

6. Explicit uncertainties

1. No direct USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or PACER query was possible; bibliographic and litigation data are from the supplied patent text plus secondary aggregators.
2. No CAFC 2026 docket was found for this patent — I state this as "not found," not as "does not exist."
3. The 2025‑12‑19 assignment to Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd. is recorded per the patent record; whether the 2026 plaintiff (Magnova LLC) is the current owner or an exclusive licensee is unverified.
4. The "In Between an inner boundary and an outer boundary" claim language in claim 1 (the patent uses "inner boundary"/"outer boundary" in the claims but "inner circle"/"outer circle" in the abstract) is a drafting inconsistency in the original, not an error on my part.

I'll search litigation-focused sources for this specific patent number.

Let me dig deeper into the identified case and look for any additional defendants or proceedings.

Let me check for any additional cases, PTAB proceedings, and the litigation portal listing.

Bottom line

Based on searches of litigation-focused sources (Justia Dockets, PacerMonitor, CourtListener/Unified Patents links, and the Ex Parte/Westlaw-style case page), I found one (1) known litigation matter asserting US 11,863,223:

Magnova LLC v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), No. 7:26‑cv‑00056, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas — pending.

I found no CAFC appeal and no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) involving US 11,863,223. I will say this as "not found," not as "does not exist" — I could not run a live PACER/PTAB query within this session.

1. Known litigation involving US 11,863,223

Source links:

• Docket (Justia): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/7:2026cv00056/1172891295
• Docket (PacerMonitor): https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/63198132/MAGNOVA_LLC_v_Apple_Inc
• Unified Patents litigation portal (as cited by the patent record): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/7%3A26-cv-00056
• Darts‑IP family litigation link (as cited by the patent record): https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=64401915
• Complaint analysis (Ex Parte case page): https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/7:26-cv-00056/doc/analysis/1

2. Ownership / party posture (relevant to standing)

• Original assignee: Spigen Korea Co., Ltd.
• Current recorded assignee (per the patent record): Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd. — assignment recorded 2025‑12‑19, effective 2025‑12‑12, Reel/Frame 073267/0558.
• The named plaintiff in the suit is Magnova LLC, whose Rule 7 disclosure identifies Blackstone IP Corp. as its corporate parent — not Intellectual Discovery.

Flag: The patent record's "Patent Owner" field for the suit was blank in the aggregator, and I could not verify the chain of title from Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd. to Magnova LLC (assignment vs. exclusive license). Under the strict instruction not to auto‑correct identifiers, I am reporting the plaintiff as named in the docket (Magnova LLC) and the recorded assignee as recorded (Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd.) without reconciling them. This ownership question is a likely early issue in the case and should be verified at source.

3. Related matters you should NOT conflate with the '223 patent

Several search hits involve different patents sharing the "223" suffix — strictly noting them so they are not attributed to US 11,863,223:

• US 7,736,223 (Savvy Dog Systems / Pace) — CBM2020‑00014, PTAB; and related district court litigation.
• US 8,863,223 (MV3 v. Roku, W.D. Tex., complaint filed 2018‑10‑17).
• US 9,049,283 — Spigen Korea's other patent (slide cover), litigated in Spigen Korea Co. v. ISpeak Co., C.D. Cal. 8:15‑cv‑01050 (settled/dismissed Nov 2016); Spigen Korea Co. v. Ultraproof, Inc., C.D. Cal. 2:16‑cv‑09185 / 2:17‑cv‑01161; CAFC Nos. 2019‑1435 and 2019‑1717; Spigen Korea v. Congjing Technology, C.D. Cal. 2:17‑cv‑03463. None of these assert US 11,863,223.

4. Notes on date/consistency

• The task states a current date of April 26, 2026 (while the session header reads 2026‑09‑19). Some retrieved docket entries are timestamped 2026‑04‑27 through 2026‑04‑30 (Apple's notices of appearance, pro hac vice motions, and the answer/counterclaim). Those entries are after the stated April 26 date, which indicates the aggregator data I retrieved is more current than the stated date. I am reporting them as docket events with their docket‑listed dates, and flagging the discrepancy rather than silently reconciling it.
• The complaint analysis page states that the infringement claim charts (Exhibits 2 and 4) were not included with the filed complaint and that specific accused models were deferred to infringement contentions — so the precise asserted claims/models are not yet fixed on the record as retrieved.

5. Explicit uncertainties

1. I could not query PACER/CM‑ECF or USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB directly; all litigation data is from secondary aggregators (Justia, PacerMonitor, Ex Parte case pages) and the patent record's own litigation flags.
2. No CAFC appeal found for 11,863,223 or for 7:26‑cv‑00056 — stated as "not found."
3. No PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM) found for US 11,863,223 — stated as "not found." (The only CBM in the search results, CBM2020‑00014, concerns US 7,736,223, a different patent.)
4. Whether Magnova LLC is the current owner or an exclusive licensee of the '223 patent (vis‑à‑vis the recorded assignee Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd.) is unverified.
5. Whether any additional defendants (beyond Apple) are named in other, separate Magnova cases asserting the '223 patent is not established from the results retrieved — I saw only the single Apple case, but my search was cut short.

I'll search for details on the one proceeding on file, plus any related PTAB/CAFC activity.

Let me run a few more targeted searches on the specific proceeding and any related appeals.

What I could and could not verify

I sourced the proceeding list from the canonical structured block (USPTO Open Data Portal returns), and I searched for public record on the proceeding itself, its petitioner, the parallel litigation, and any Federal Circuit activity. As of 2026-09-19 the petition was filed one day earlier, so no institution decision, no panel assignment, no POPR, no grounds document, and no FWD are public. Everything below distinguishes what is known from what is not yet knowable. I did not query PTAB E2E directly (I have no authenticated E2E/PACER session), so treat procedural dates as computed estimates keyed off the filing date, not as E2E-confirmed events.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file for US 11,863,223: IPR2026-00492 ([Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), filed 2026-09-18, status: Pending) — so the breakdown is 1 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB outcome to lean on. All 10 claims — including sole independent claim 1 — remain in force and wholly untested at the Board. The only meaningful signal is directional and negative for the patent owner in a soft sense: this patent, which had never been challenged at the PTAB across seven-plus years and a large continuation family, has now drawn an IPR from Apple — the same defendant named in the co-pending W.D. Tex. campaign (Magnova LLC v. Apple Inc., 7:26-cv-00056, filed 2026-02-19, Judge Alan D. Albright). You cannot tell a client "claims 1–5 are canceled." You also cannot tell a client the patent "has survived two IPRs." Neither statement is supported: the first is false, the second has no factual predicate here at all.

IPR2026-00492 — Apple Inc. v. Patent Owner of US 11,863,223 (Spigen Korea Co., Ltd. / Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd.)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (IPR) — 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319.
• Filed: 2026-09-18.
• Status: Pending — verbatim from the structured data ("Pending", last modified 2026-09-18). Plain-English gloss: the petition has been filed; the Board has not yet accorded a filing date publicly, has not received a patent owner preliminary response, and has not decided institution.
• Judge panel: Not public / not yet assigned to a three-APJ panel (panels are typically named in the Notice of Filing Date Accorded and in the institution decision, neither of which is out as of 2026-09-19).
• Petition grounds: Unknown / not public. Which claims (all 10? claim 1 only?), which references, and which statutory basis (§ 102 / § 103, and/or § 112 for the projection-based limitations) cannot be stated from any source I could retrieve. I will not guess. Given the claim set, the two natural attack avenues are (a) the "metal plate is made of a magnet which produces magnetic flux" limitation in claim 1 versus the specification's ordinary ferromagnetic-plate embodiments, and (b) the orthographic-projection-based negative limitations in claims 1, 4, 5 and 6.
• Institution decision: None issued. Statutory/regulatory sequence: the patent owner's preliminary response is due three months from the notice according a filing date (37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b)) — on the order of 2026-12-18 if notice issues promptly; the institution decision is then due under § 314(b)/37 C.F.R. § 42.4 on the order of 2027-03-18 (six months from the notice date under the current framework). Both dates are estimates from the filing date, not E2E-confirmed.
• Final Written Decision: None. If instituted, the FWD is statutorily due within one year of institution (§ 316(a)(11)) — on the order of 2028-03 — extendable for good cause under § 316(a)(11).
• Settlement / termination: None. No adverse judgment, no termination, no settlement on the public record. (Any settlement in the parallel litigation would not by itself end an IPR; the Board requires the parties to address settlement and can terminate on request, but nothing of the kind exists yet.)
• Appeal: Not possible yet and none found. There is no FWD to appeal. Consistent with the earlier bibliographic section, I found no Federal Circuit docket touching US 11,863,223. Note that if a FWD issues, appeals run to the CAFC under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and would appear on CourtListener.
• Defensive value: Limited today and asymmetrically positive for Apple. Filing IS itself the value: it (i) preserves the § 315(b) window, (ii) creates leverage for a district-court stay motion in W.D. Tex., and (iii) if Apple files a Sotera-style stipulation (its standard practice — see, e.g., Apple's 2026-03-13 Sotera stipulation and Appendix A grounds table in WeCrevention, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 7-25-cv-00458, filed with the Board, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558882](/patent/1558882)/download-documents), it neutralizes Fintiv factor 4 and materially improves the odds of institution. Until institution, a non-Apple defendant gets essentially no benefit from this filing — no estoppel attaches, and no claim is at risk.

Strategic summary

Claim-level status: everything is UNTESTED. No claim of 11,863,223 has been canceled, confirmed, disclaimed, or subjected to an adverse judgment. The live claim set is claims 1–10 with claim 1 as the only independent claim — which means the entire assertion value of this patent sits on one independent claim plus its dependents, and any future FWD will rise or fall with claim 1. If claim 1 were canceled and the dependents fell with it, the patent would be functionally dead; conversely, because there is a single independent claim, the patent owner does not have the usual multi-independent-claim fallback. That concentration of risk is the most useful thing in the file for a defendant today.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel has not attached to Apple because it attaches only after a final written decision. Practically: (i) Apple is free to run every invalidity theory it has in W.D. Tex. until a FWD issues, and its invalidity defenses there are not constrained yet; (ii) non-party defendants/privies are unconstrained entirely, and privity with Apple is fact-specific — a co-defendant alleged to control or be controlled by Apple's defense would need a Monolithic Power-style analysis; (iii) for anyone else facing a demand letter today, all § 102/§ 103 grounds on patents and printed publications remain open. One timing point worth docketing: Apple was served 2026-02-23, so its § 315(b) one-year bar date is 2027-02-23; additional Apple petitions (e.g., on the sibling '119 patent or on claims not challenged in IPR2026-00492) remain available in that window.

Pattern signals. (1) No defensive aggregator visible. The current assignee per the patent record is Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd. (assignment recorded 2025-12-19, effective 2025-12-12, Reel/Frame 073267/0558) and the plaintiff is Magnova LLC, whose Rule 7 disclosure identifies Blackstone IP Corp. as corporate parent (Dkt. 3, 7:26-cv-00056) — that is a monetization/assertion chain, not a Unified Patents-style defensive aggregator. No Unified Patents IPR on this patent is reflected in the canonical list. (2) Single petition, single petitioner so far — no serial-filing pattern on this patent. (3) No patent owner PTAB-appeal aggressiveness can be assessed because there has never been a PTAB outcome on this patent. (4) One inconsistency worth flagging explicitly: the PTAB block lists inventor Dae-Young Kim but no patent owner, while the patent of record names Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd. and the litigation plaintiff is Magnova LLC. Which entity files the POPR / is the true owner of record matters for the petition's Real-Party-in-Interest and privity analysis and for any § 315(b) service argument — confirm via USPTO Assignment and PTAB E2E, not secondary sources.

Cross-section flag (contradiction check). The earlier litigation section described the W.D. Tex. suit as a 2026 filing against Apple and stated the assignment chain to Magnova was unverified. The docket since retrieved confirms service on Apple 2026-02-23 and an Answer with counterclaim filed 2026-04-30 (Dkt. 18), which independently corroborates that Apple had both the incentive and the standing to petition — and makes timely, non-time-barred filing of IPR2026-00492 on 2026-09-18 entirely consistent. No contradiction with the earlier section; it strengthens it.

CAFC status. No appeal exists or can exist from this proceeding yet, and none was found for the patent. The earlier sections' "not found" is the correct characterization — it is not evidence that none has ever existed.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being asserted on this patent (or the sibling family):

• Do not build a defense on a PTAB outcome that does not exist. There is no FWD to cite. Any statement that claims are canceled would be sanction-bait.
• Track two dates and one document. Document: Apple's Sotera stipulation (Apple's near-universal practice; if filed and served in W.D. Tex., it is a strong institution-tailwind and supports a stay motion). Dates: POPR on the order of 2026-12-18 and the institution decision on the order of 2027-03-18 (both computed, not E2E-confirmed). If instituted, the FWD is due within one year of institution, on the order of 2028-03.
• Preserve your own invalidity posture independently. Because estoppel has not attached and Apple's grounds are unknown, do not assume you can free-ride. The most exposed limitations are claim 1's requirement that the plate itself be "a magnet which produces magnetic flux" (the specification's ordinary embodiments are ferromagnetic) and the negative "does not overlap with an orthographic parallel projection of the area formed by the inner boundary" limitations in claims 1/4/5/6. Claim-construction position on "a metal plate" — single contiguous piece vs. a multi-magnet array — is the pivot identified in the parallel litigation analysis, and it cuts both ways.
• Watch the § 315(b) window. Apple's bar date is 2027-02-23. A further petition (additional claims, sibling patents, or a different petitioner) inside that window is a live risk to the patent owner and a live opportunity for coordination.
• If you are not Apple: nothing here estops the patent owner, and nothing here benefits you until institution. Consider whether your interests align with Apple's petition (if claim 1 goes down, the patent is effectively gone) and whether filing your own petition or joining as a party is worth the fee and estoppel trade-off.

Where to verify anything in this section:

• PTAB E2E / PTAB public information (proceeding documents, papers, panel): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/
• USPTO PTAB decisions library (for any future institution decision or FWD): https://www.uspto.gov/ptab/decisions
• CourtListener / Justia / PacerMonitor for the parallel case: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/7:2026cv00056/1172891295 ; https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/63198132/MAGNOVA_LLC_v_Apple_Inc
• USPTO Assignment (confirm Intellectual Discovery chain of title): https://assignment.uspto.gov/

Explicit uncertainty. No institution decision, no panel, no grounds, no POPR, no FWD, no settlement, and no CAFC appeal exist on the public record for IPR2026-00492 as of 2026-09-19. The absence of PTAB activity on the sibling patents (US 10,469,119; 12,052,044; 12,081,257; 12,388,482; 12,224,788; 12,191,902) is not established by anything I can cite — the canonical block in this prompt covers only US 11,863,223, so do not read it as a negative as to the rest of the family.

I'll research the assignment chain, the parties, and the litigation before reconstructing the record.

Initial searches surfaced mostly false-positive ID collisions. Let me target the parties directly.

Substantial findings. Let me dig into Magnova LLC's ownership and any second assignment link.

Analyst note on sourcing

I was able to reconstruct the litigation-side ownership facts from primary court filings (the Rule 7 corporate disclosure in the complaint) and the transfer-side facts from the assignment record carried on the patent itself. I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center UI for this patent in this session, so the correspondent-of-record fields (attorney/firm who filed each recording) are not available to me and are flagged as such rather than guessed. Where I say "no second reel/frame found," that means not found in the sources I could reach — not that none exists.

Inventors

Dae‑Young Kim — sole named inventor on US 11,863,223 (confirmed on the face of the patent, app. 17/443,183).

• Employer at filing: Not stated in the patent text. The application was filed by and assigned to Spigen Korea Co., Ltd. ("Application filed by Spigen Korea Co Ltd", 2021‑07‑22, per the patent record), so the working presumption is Spigen Korea — but the patent does not carry an express "assignor of inventor's rights" statement in the text I have, so treat this as probable, not verified.
• Departure pattern: Not determinable. I have no employment, assignment-back, or inventor-departure data for Mr. Kim. No finding either way. (Note for the record: a single-inventor consumer-accessory patent is unremarkable and is not itself a signal.)

Original assignee

Spigen Korea Co., Ltd. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) — named as original assignee on US 11,863,223 and as assignor on the only recorded post‑issuance assignment.

• Line of business: Consumer mobile-device accessories — protective cases, screen protectors, chargers, mounts — sold under the Spigen brand globally. This is an operating, revenue-generating consumer-products company, not a holding vehicle.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Effectively yes. The specification is a product specification: it discloses a two-part case (soft TPU cover 10 + hard polycarbonate frame 20), a recess (26) and surrounding recess (28) for the plate, and a magnet-bearing support (40) with legs (46) for flat-surface and vehicle-air-vent use. That is a description of a shipping case-and-mount product family, and the accused products in the 2026 suit (Apple's MagSafe-compatible cases) are in the same commercial category Spigen sells into. The patent itself, however, does not name a commercial SKU.
• Current status: Operating. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or insolvency event surfaced. Spigen Korea appears in the record as a repeat patent plaintiff in its own right in earlier years (e.g., the US 9,049,283 slide-cover and design-patent campaigns, C.D. Cal. 8:15‑cv‑01050 / 2:16‑cv‑08559 / 2:16‑cv‑09185, CAFC Nos. 2019‑1435, 2019‑1717). Those are different patents and should not be conflated with the '223 chain — but they do establish Spigen as a litigious operating company, which is the opposite of the classic "distressed seller" profile.
• Note: Spigen Korea is no longer the patent's recorded owner as of the Dec 2025 transfer (below).

Assignment timeline

Yes, the Assignment Center shows recorded activity for this patent. One post‑issuance assignment is visible in the authoritative patent record:

• 2025‑12‑12 (executed) / recorded 2025‑12‑19 — Reel 073267 / Frame 0558
  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST") — i.e., a straight assignment, not a security interest, merger, or name change.
  • Assignor: SPIGEN, KOREA CO., LTD.
  • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL DISCOVERY CO. LTD. (Korea, Republic of)
  • Correspondent: Not obtainable in this session. The assignment abstract available to me does not expose the recording correspondent. This is the single most valuable missing datum for the repeat-correspondent analysis below — see signal 3.
  • Context: Transfer to a monetization vehicle / asserter. Spigen, an operating accessory manufacturer, conveyed the patent to a Korean patent-monetization fund. This is the only recorded link I can confirm.

Second link — likely but NOT recorded in what I can see:

• No reel/frame evidencing a transfer from Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd. to Magnova LLC, or from Intellectual Discovery to Blackstone IP Corp., was surfaced in any source I could reach. The distinction matters:
  • If Intellectual Discovery assigned the patent to a Magnova/Blackstone entity, an assignment record should exist and should be findable in Assignment Center (search assignor "Intellectual Discovery").
  • If Intellectual Discovery instead granted an exclusive license and retained title, Magnova could still sue as an exclusive licensee under 35 U.S.C. § 281 — and the recording, if any, would be a License conveyance rather than an Assignment.
  • I am not asserting either. I am stating that the second link is unverified and should be pulled at the source.
• One partial datapoint that bears on it: Magnova LLC's Rule 7 Disclosure Statement, filed 2026‑02‑19, identifies "Corporate Parent Blackstone IP Corp." for MAGNOVA LLC (docket entry 3; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/7:2026cv00056/1172891295). That confirms Magnova is an SPV under a corporate parent, but it says nothing about the date or form by which the '223 patent reached that structure. I could not verify what Blackstone IP Corp. is (whether affiliated with Blackstone Inc. or an independent IP-holding corporation), and I will not speculate.

Flag — refinement of the earlier section, not a contradiction: The previously generated summary stated the aggregator's "Patent Owner" field is blank and that the ID → Magnova chain of title was unconfirmed. That remains true, but is now partially advanced: the plaintiff's own corporate disclosure (docket entry 3, 2026‑02‑19) supplies Magnova's parent. What is still missing is the instrument and reel/frame connecting Intellectual Discovery to the Magnova/Blackstone structure.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11863223
    2017 : Priority filing 62 511 280 by Spigen Korea
    2018 : Application 15 989 033 filed
    2019 : Continuation 16 581 596 filed
    2021 : Divisional 17 443 183 filed
    2024 : Patent US 11863223 grants
    2025 : Spigen Korea executes assignment Dec 12
         : Assignment recorded to Intellectual Discovery
    2026 : Magnova LLC sues Apple in W D Tex

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
The '223 patent moved from an operating consumer-products company (Spigen Korea Co., Ltd.) to Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd., a Korean patent-aggregation and monetization company that does not manufacture. Evidence: Reel 073267/0558, executed 2025‑12‑12, recorded 2025‑12‑19. The downstream assertion is brought by a further SPV — Magnova LLC — which is identified in its own Rule 7 disclosure as having a corporate parent (Blackstone IP Corp.), the classic single-purpose-LLC structure used to hold title for one campaign. The final link (ID → Magnova/Blackstone) is unverified, so I score the first hop as the concrete finding and treat the second as likely-but-unconfirmed.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd. is a documented assertion-side entity, not a neutral aggregator:

• Korean legal press describes ID as "국내 원조 NPE" — Korea's original/first domestic NPE — and reports that ID, now acquired by Xperix (KOSDAQ 317770), sues through U.S. subsidiaries; specifically KAIFI LLC v. Apple in W.D. Tex. (touch-panel / hover-input patent 8,446,385), with an earlier KAIFI v. Apple + Google campaign (https://www.ipdaily.co.kr/2026/01/12/16/36/05/45395/).
• PTAB petition exhibits (IPR papers citing EX1026–EX1033) state the transition plainly: ID "eventually turned its focus from aggregation to litigation to monetize its patents—not suing in its own name, but instead assigning its patents to assertion entities," with roughly 10 ongoing litigation campaigns, naming vehicles Throop LLC (parent: Golden Wave Partners, an ID subsidiary) and confirming ID "has, for all intents and purposes, transitioned to the private sector."
• Background corroborating the fund's scale and assertiveness: IAM/sovereign-patent-fund research (Deep Centre, 2016; IAM issue 80) and contemporaneous coverage of ID's $350M–$500M+ portfolio and 3,800–5,000+ patent holdings.
• Caveat: Intellectual Discovery is not on the classical list you supplied (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi‑LAN, etc.). It belongs in the "any entity surfaced as a high-frequency plaintiff" bucket — and the PTAB record above is the citation for that.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (data gap).
I could not retrieve the recording correspondent for Reel 073267/0558, so I cannot test for recurrence. Two things I can report, carefully separated:

• Litigation counsel of record for Magnova LLC: Benjamin T. Wang and Andrew D. Weiss, Russ August & Kabat; Jihun Kim admitted pro hac vice (W.D. Tex. 7:26‑cv‑00056, complaint filed 2026‑02‑19). This is a plaintiff-side patent firm. Litigation counsel ≠ assignment correspondent, and a single appearance is not a finding under your recurrence test.
• Defendant's side, for completeness: Steven J. Wingard, Scott, Douglass & Mcconnico (local), with a pro hac vice team for Apple.
• Action item: pull Assignor = "Intellectual Discovery" / "Spigen Korea" in Assignment Center and capture the correspondent on 073267/0558 and on any ID→Magnova/Blackstone or License record. That single field would resolve this signal.

4. Cascading transfers — UNCLEAR / PARTIAL.
Only one transfer is confirmed within the window (Spigen → Intellectual Discovery, executed 2025‑12‑12). A second hop into the asserting structure is implied by the fact that a different entity (Magnova LLC) is suing, and by the intervening 2025‑07‑21 filing of continuation US 19/275,610 / US 2025/0350310 A1 (still shown as Spigen-assigned in the family listing, i.e., filed before the December transfer). Two hops from operating company → fund → SPV within ~18 months would satisfy this signal, but I can only prove the first hop. Scored unclear.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT.
Assignment executed 2025‑12‑12, recorded 2025‑12‑19; first infringement suit on this patent filed 2026‑02‑19. That is roughly 69 days from execution to complaint — well inside your 6‑month window, and consistent with a chain assembled to create a clean standing record in the Western District. Note the venue detail: the case was filed in the Midland Division of W.D. Tex. and reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright on 2026‑02‑20 (docket entry 6) — one of the most NPE-heavy patent venues in the country.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding for Spigen Korea. Spigen is an operating seller; the transfer reads as a portfolio monetization sale, not a distressed liquidation. (The Xperix acquisition of Intellectual Discovery is a corporate M&A event concerning the buyer of the patent, not a bankruptcy of the seller.)

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR.
The configuration is suggestive: Spigen (operating) transfers to a fund that asserts, and the target (Apple's MagSafe-compatible cases) competes in Spigen's own accessory market. But there is no evidence that Spigen directed, funded, or retained a participation in the Magnova campaign, and no SEC filing (Spigen Korea is not a U.S. registrant). Score unclear — do not upgrade without a license-back or participation agreement.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Intellectual Discovery began as a government-backed defensive alliance — early contemporaneous reporting quotes its officers comparing ID to RPX and describing a goal of protecting Korean industry — but the PTAB record (EX1031–1033) documents that it "stop[ped] providing certain defensive 'public services'" and pivoted to assertion. The 2026 suit confirms the assertion posture.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain is: Spigen Korea Co., Ltd. (operating accessory maker) → Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd. (Korean patent-monetization fund; confirmed assertion-side entity by PTAB record EX1029–EX1033 and Korean IP press) via executed 2025‑12‑12 / recorded 2025‑12‑19, Reel 073267/0558 — followed, 69 days later, by an infringement complaint on this patent by Magnova LLC (corporate parent per its own Rule 7 disclosure: Blackstone IP Corp.) against Apple Inc., W.D. Tex. 7:26‑cv‑00056, filed 2026‑02‑19 before Judge Albright. That gives two strong signals — shell/SPV transfer to a licensing-only entity and a pre-litigation transfer inside the 6-month window — plus a third (known asserter) documented from the PTAB record. The one genuine gap is the instrument and reel/frame connecting Intellectual Discovery to the Magnova/Blackstone structure, which is why I describe the second hop as unverified rather than proven.

Verify at source: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 11863223, then separately search Assignor "Intellectual Discovery" and Assignor "Spigen Korea" to capture the correspondent field and any License/Assignment record feeding Magnova LLC). Parallel index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

Residual uncertainties I want on the record

1. Assignment correspondent unknown — the single most important missing field; it drives signal 3 and would be decisive if the same attorney/firm appears on both 073267/0558 and the ID→Magnova instrument.
2. No reel/frame found for Intellectual Discovery → Magnova LLC / Blackstone IP Corp. — assignment vs. exclusive license is unresolved, and that distinction affects Magnova's standing to sue.
3. Blackstone IP Corp. unidentified — I will not assert any affiliation with Blackstone Inc. on this record.
4. Inventor employer and any departure — undetermined; no data.
5. Spigen license-back / participation in the Magnova campaign — undetermined; this is what would move signal 7 off "unclear."
6. The 2025‑07‑21 continuation (US 19/275,610 / US 2025/0350310 A1) was filed before the December transfer but may itself have been conveyed; its own assignment record should be checked, since these family members are all co-assertable against the same MagSafe products.

I'll verify the focal patent and then research each of its cited prior-art references. Let me run targeted searches.

I have four of the six US cited references. Let me get the remaining three (Weiss, Mojo Mobility, Motorola, X2 Power).

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,863,223 (Magnetic mount for electronic devices)

Scope and sourcing note: I searched for the specific number 11863223 and confirmed the record at https://patents.google.com/patent/US11863223/en. I could not query USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR directly (as flagged in the earlier summary section); the citation list below is taken from the authoritative full patent text supplied, and I verified the substance of four of the seven references by live retrieval (sources cited inline). Per the operating rule, I treat the supplied patent text as authoritative where it conflicts with anything else.

Important framing for § 102: The '223 patent's earliest effective priority date is 2017-05-25. All seven references below published before that date, so each qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (printed publication / published application before the effective filing date). Whether each is anticipatory (§ 102) or merely obviousness art (§ 103) depends on whether it discloses every element of a claim, arranged as claimed. The seven references carry the "cited by examiner" asterisk in the record.

The claim that matters. The '223 patent has one independent claim (claim 1). To anticipate claim 1 a reference must disclose all of:

• (A) an electronic device having a receiver coil for wireless charging formed between an inner boundary and an outer boundary;
• (B) a protective cover constructed to receive the device;
• (C) a metal plate received between the protective cover and the electronic device;
• (D) the metal plate is made of a magnet which produces magnetic flux (not merely ferromagnetic material);
• (E) the plate positioned to substantially allow magnetic waves to pass through the area formed by the inner boundary; and
• (F) the plate does not overlap the orthographic parallel projection of that inner-boundary area.

1. US 2013/0300220 A1 — Weiss ("System and methods for generating electricity")

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0300220 A1; App. No. 13/472,252, filed 2012-05-15; published 2013-11-14; inventor Gene J. Weiss; priority to provisional 61/646,670 (2012-05-14). Counterpart EP 2665166 A2 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/4c/1b/16/61eca7fa7019ab/EP2665166A2.pdf).
• Description: Power-generation device in which a "generation unit magnet" is driven through an induction coil (e.g., by a moving magnet on a vehicle, fan, elevator), generating current. It is a dynamo/electricity-generation disclosure — no phone, no case, no wireless-charging receiver coil in a portable device.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: None. It discloses a magnet and a coil (tangentially to element D/A), but omits (B), (C), (E) and (F) entirely and the (A) environment as claimed. On its face this citation appears to be background art for "magnet + induction coil," not an anticipatory reference to any of claims 1–10.

2. US 2016/0056664 A1 — Mojo Mobility ("Powering and/or charging with a plurality of protocols")

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0056664 A1; priority 2011-01-18; published 2016-02-25; applicant Mojo Mobility Inc.
• Description (from record title; detail not independently retrieved — flagged): Part of Mojo Mobility's wireless-power-transfer family, directed to inductive charging systems that support multiple power-transfer protocols and multiple coils/magnets for positioning tolerance. Confidence: moderate — I did not retrieve the specification body for this specific publication before the search budget closed; the description rests on the record's title plus the known subject matter of the Mojo Mobility family.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Does not anticipate claim 1. It is directed to a wireless charging system (transmitter/receiver coils, alignment magnets), not to a case with a metal plate that is itself a magnet received between a protective cover and the device. It may be relevant § 103 art on the general combination of a magnet with a wireless-charging coil, but it does not disclose (B)/(C) as claimed.

3. US 2016/0294427 A1 — Otter Products ("Electronic device case with inductive coupling features")

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0294427 A1; App. No. 15/017,894, filed 2016-02-08; published 2016-10-06; inventor James J. Wojcik; assignee Otter Products, LLC; granted as US 10,326,488 B2 (2019-06-18); provisional 62/141,807 (2015-04-01). (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10326488)
• Description: A protective case whose shell has a core of high-magnetic-permeability material (e.g., ferrite) affixed to the back portion at a location that coincides with the center region of the wireless charging coil of the installed device. The stated purpose is to increase inductive coupling between the device's receiving coil and the source charging coil.
• Potential § 102 anticipation of claims 1–10: No — and notably it points the opposite way. Element-by-element: it supplies (B) a protective cover and the general (A) environment of a wireless-charging coil. But:
  • (D) fails: the core is a high-permeability ferrite material, expressly not a flux-producing magnet.
  • (E)/(F) fail, and affirmatively conflict: the core is deliberately placed at the coil's center region — i.e., it overlaps the coil center — whereas claim 1 requires the plate to not overlap the inner-boundary area.
  • (C) fails as claimed: the "core" is embedded in the case shell, not a discrete metal plate "received between the protective cover and the electronic device."
  • It is therefore best treated as the primary § 103 reference showing what a case-with-coil-alignment element looked like, and its center-overlap teaching actually supports the non-obviousness of the '223's non-overlapping geometry.

4. US 2017/0063128 A1 — Motorola Mobility ("Multiple coil structure for supporting multiple types of wireless charging and near field communications")

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0063128 A1; priority 2015-08-25; published 2017-03-02; assignee Motorola Mobility LLC.
• Description (from record title; body not independently retrieved — flagged): A multiple-coil structure within an electronic device for supporting multiple wireless-charging types and NFC. Confidence: moderate — description rests on the record's title and family/field, not a retrieved specification.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Does not anticipate claim 1. It concerns the device's internal coil architecture, not a case with a magnet plate between the cover and the device, and does not disclose (C), (E) or (F). Possible § 103 art on multi-coil wireless charging generally.

5. US 2017/0077727 A1 — Samsung Electro-Mechanics ("Conductive plate and electronic device having the same")

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0077727 A1; priority 2015-09-11; published 2017-03-16; assignee Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd.; granted as US 10,116,150 B2. (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0077727.html)
• Description: A conductive (metal) plate for a portable-terminal cover/rear cover that sits on a side of the coil substrate. Separate metal members are insulated from one another, and a dielectric portion/slit/hole is provided through which the magnetic field generated by a wireless charger reaches the coil substrate. Effective charging is maintained even when the cover is largely metallic.
• Potential § 102 anticipation of claims 1–10: No. It describes the device's own metal back cover with a field-transmitting slit — not a separate magnet plate received between a protective cover and the device (fails (C)); the plate is conductive heat-radiating metal, not a flux-producing magnet (fails (D)); and the geometry/tiling is different from the single "rounded concave edge" non-overlap requirement. Relevant at most as § 103 art on "metal cover ≠ fully blocking wireless charging."

6. US 2017/0098958 A1 — Samsung Electro-Mechanics ("Cover and portable terminal including the same")

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0098958 A1; App. No. 15/226,325, filed 2016-08-02; published 2017-04-06; priority 2015-10-02 (KR 10-2015-0139386) et al.; granted as US 10,298,059 B2 (2019-05-21). (https://www.patentsreview.com/a/20170098958-cover-portable-terminal-including.html)
• Description: A cover with a conductive layer having conductive tiles in a region corresponding to the coil, a protective (anodized/insulating) layer, and optionally a cutout at the winding center of the coil, to reduce eddy-current loss during wireless charging.
• Potential § 102 anticipation of claims 1–10: No. Again a device cover with a slitted/tiled conductive layer (fails (C)); not a magnet plate (fails (D)); its "cutout at the winding center" is about eddy-current control, not a magnet plate positioned off the inner boundary per (E)/(F). At most § 103 background.

7. US 2017/0117085 A1 — X2 Power Technology ("Magnetic Structures with Self-Enclosed Magnetic Paths")

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0117085 A1; priority 2015-10-26; published 2017-04-27; assignee X2 Power Technology Limited.
• Description (from record title; body not independently retrieved — flagged): Magnetic structures engineered to provide self-enclosed magnetic flux paths (flux guiding for magnetic/inductive applications). Confidence: lower — description rests on the record's title; specification not retrieved.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Does not anticipate claim 1. It is a magnetics-component disclosure (possibly relevant to (D), a magnet producing flux, and to flux-path management), with no case, protective cover, or receiver-coil-boundary geometry. (B), (C), (E), (F) absent.

Synthesis — the bottom line for § 102

No cited reference anticipates claim 1 or any of claims 2–10 on its own. Each reference is missing at least the combination of elements (C) a distinct metal plate received between the protective cover and the device, and (D) that plate being a flux-producing magnet, plus the (E)/(F) non-overlap geometry. The reference most factually on point — US 2016/0294427 A1 (Otter Products, now US 10,326,488) — is directed to a case-with-coil feature but expressly places its high-permeability core at the coil's center region and uses a ferrite core rather than a magnet, i.e., it teaches away from claim 1's requirement that a magnet plate not overlap the inner boundary.

Practical read: These seven are best characterized as background/§ 103 references, with Otter '427 the principal one. The prosecution novelty of the '223 therefore appears to rest substantially on the combination of (i) making the plate a magnet, rather than ferrite/steel, and (ii) the rounded-concave-edge / non-overlap placement relative to the receiver-coil's inner boundary — the very features recited in the single independent claim.

Explicit uncertainties (do not over-read)

1. I did not directly query USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR; the citation list is from the supplied authoritative patent text, and I confirmed the number 11863223 itself.
2. Descriptions for US 2016/0056664 A1 (Mojo Mobility), US 2017/0063128 A1 (Motorola) and US 2017/0117085 A1 (X2 Power) rest on the record's titles and family/field — I did not retrieve their specification bodies before the tool budget closed, so treat those three descriptions as provisional. The four I retrieved (Weiss, Otter, both Samsung EM references) are grounded in the sources linked above.
3. This analysis addresses the seven examiner-style "Patent Citations" listed in the '223 record. The record separately lists 49 "Family Cites Families" items (including Spigen's own earlier magnetic-mount publications US 2017/0035172 A1 and US 2017/0155418 A1, and Mojo Mobility's US 8,890,470 / US 9,178,369 / US 2011/0050164). Those are family-level citations, not citations against the '223 itself, and are not analyzed here; if you want, I can run the same element-by-element § 102 mapping across that broader family list.
4. Nothing above should be read as a legal conclusion on validity or infringement; it is a technical element-by-element prior-art mapping.

I'll ground the prior-art discussions with targeted searches before drafting the §103 analysis.

Let me verify two more cited references before drafting.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,863,223 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Prepared: as of the current date supplied for this task. Two date/record caveats up front, flagged rather than silently resolved:

1. The task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the tool environment/patent-fetch stamp is 2026‑09‑19. Because §102 art qualification is date‑driven, I treat the 2026‑04‑26 framing as controlling for "as of" statements and note that nothing below turns on the ~5‑month difference.
2. This analysis is built only from the prior-art listings on the patent page (the 7 examiner Citations and the 49 Family Cites Families) plus verification searches. I have read abstracts, claims and specification snippets of those references — not their full specifications. Paragraph‑level pin cites must be verified in full text before being used in a petition or an invalidity contention.

1. Framing the obviousness question — what is actually new in claim 1

Building on the prior sections' claim analysis (do not repeat): claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and it recites five structural/positional elements. The prior generated section correctly flagged the most important consequence — claim 1 requires the plate to be a magnet ("made of a magnet which produces magnetic flux"), not the ferromagnetic steel plate that the specification's Table 1 actually tested. That drafting choice defines the obviousness battleground:

Critically, the patent's own background is an admission: "[t]he magnetically attractable members are usually a metal plate and a magnet, and the metal plate is attached to an electronic device or a case," and the magnetic mount itself is admitted as disclosed in U.S. Ser. No. 15/359,465. So E1–E3 are admitted art, and the patent's stated problem — "such metal plate may impede or prevent wireless charging" — is itself an admission that the problem was known. That collapses the §103 question to: was it obvious, as of 2017‑05‑25, to (i) use a magnet (rather than a ferromagnet) as the in‑case plate and (ii) shape/position it so it clears the coil's inner region?

2. The qualifying prior art and what each reference supplies

All references below are AIA‑era art measured against the 2017‑05‑25 effective filing date (the '223 family is post‑AIA: filed 2021‑07‑22 as a divisional, claiming benefit back to provisional 62/511,280).

2.1 References whose §102 status is clean

2.2 References whose §102 status is problematic — do not lead with these

• Spigen Korea, US 2017/0035172 A1 (filed 2015‑08‑06, pub. 2017‑02‑09) and US 2017/0155418 A1 (filed 2016‑11‑22, pub. 2017‑06‑01). These disclose precisely the claimed environment: soft cover 10 + hard frame 20, first member 30 "placed between the soft protective cover 10 and the hard protective frame 20", a recess in the frame to receive it, and a support 40 with a second member 50 — plus the express alternative that "the second member 50 may be made of ferromagnetic material and the first member 30 may be made of a magnet which produces magnetic flux" ('418). That sentence supplies E4 in ipsissimis verbis.
  • But: both are commonly owned by Spigen Korea Co., Ltd. and appear to name the same inventor (Dae‑Young Kim). US 2017/0035172 published 2017‑02‑09 — within one year of the 2017‑05‑25 priority date — so §102(b)(1)(A) (inventor's own disclosure) and, for the publication‑as‑§102(a)(2)‑art route, §102(b)(2)(C) (common ownership) are live exceptions. A petitioner must establish that these exceptions do not apply (e.g., different inventive entity, or ownership at the time the '223 was filed). Treat '172/'418 as corroborating evidence of what the art knew, and as the patentee's own admission, rather than as the lead §102/§103 reference. (Note: the face of the parent US 10,469,119 lists a citation to "2017/0035172 A1 * 2/2017 Kim" — the ID string as printed differs from US 2017/0035172 A1's own numbering format; I have not resolved whether that is an OCR/transcription artifact or a distinct reference, and I flag it rather than assume.)
  • Related and equally self‑owned: US 9,484,769 B2 (Spigen, "Case having wireless charging receiver pad"), US 2017/0035172, US 2017/0155418.

Prosecution context worth noting: the '223 was allowed after a single non‑final action (mailed 2023‑02‑02) and a notice of allowance (2023‑08‑17) — a thin prosecution record. The examiner of record is reported as Cindy Trandai (aggregator record, patents-review). Critically, Otter '427, Samsung '727, Samsung '958 and Rothbaum '857 all appear on the face of this family — i.e., the strongest combination below is a combination of references the examiner saw but did not apply together. That is the classic IPR posture.

3. Element‑by‑element mapping for claim 1

Reading: Samsung '958 is the single most dangerous reference, because it independently supplies the entire positional/geometric feature (E5) with a curved, arc‑shaped, concentrically‑arranged plate geometry around a coil axis — which is structurally what claim 3's "rounded concave edge" and claims 4–6's alignment alternatives describe. Rothbaum supplies E4. Otter supplies E2/E3 and the wireless‑charging‑case context. No single reference supplies everything, so the case is a §103 case, not §102 — and a strong one, because every element sits within a single, small, well‑populated art (the '223's own CPC classes are H04B1/3888, A45C11/00, H02J50/10, A45C13/1069 — the same classes occupied by nearly every reference above).

PHOSITA: a mechanical/product‑design engineer with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering and ~2–4 years of experience designing portable‑electronic‑device cases, holders or wireless‑power accessories.

4. Specific combinations rendering claim 1 obvious

Ground 1 (primary): Samsung '958 + Rothbaum '857 + Otter '427

What each supplies: '958 → the plate‑over‑coil with the coil‑center cutout and concentric arc geometry (E3, E5, and the shape predicate for claims 3–6); Rothbaum → the magnetic‑metal/magnet element in the case back plus the magnetically‑retained support accessory (E4 and the "mount" purpose); Otter → the device‑receiving protective case with an element on the case back deliberately aligned to the device's charging coil, and the express recognition of the attenuation problem (E1, E2, E3).

Motivation (KSR rationales, labeled):

• (A) Same field / common problem. All three address a conductive or magnetic element positioned relative to a phone's charging coil inside a case or cover. Same field of endeavor and the identical problem the '223 admits (metal in the case blocking wireless charging).
• (B) Predictable result with a known technique. '958 already solved the blocking problem by removing material at the winding center; Rothbaum already put magnet material on a case back for mounting. Combining = "arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform."
• (C) Market/design incentive. A magnetic mount that also permits Qi charging was an obvious commercial goal; Otter '427 exists because third‑party cases were degrading charging, and a competing design goal (magnet retention) is satisfied by Rothbaum's teaching. The artisan faces only two competing desiderata and the art shows the reconciliation.
• (D) Finite number of predictable solutions. Once one decides to keep the coil center clear, the remaining choices are (i) put the magnetic material in the annulus around the coil, or (ii) at the periphery — the two places '958's tile geometry and '727's plate geometry already place metal.

Reasonable expectation of success: high. The physics (metal over a coil's winding blocks coupling) was known and documented in the references themselves; '958 demonstrates the operative geometry; Rothbaum demonstrates the magnetic retention function. No new mechanism is required, and no reference teaches away.

Ground 2: Samsung '727 + Rothbaum '857 (+ Otter '427 for the case)

Nearly the same mapping, with '727 supplying the metal plate ("metal members each having a plate shape") plus a hole/extension part located at the winding center / inner space, and the insulating gap between plates geometry. '727's express focus is raising wireless‑charging efficiency of a metal‑containing cover, which is a direct, articulable motivation to combine with a magnetic mount. This ground is slightly weaker than Ground 1 because '727's plate is more a thermal/shielding structure than a mount, but it corroborates '958.

Ground 3: Rothbaum '857 + Otter '427 (+ X2 '085 and/or Mojo '664)

What each supplies: Rothbaum → case with magnetic metal back + magnetic support accessory (E2–E4); Otter → the charging‑case context and coil‑alignment concept (E1–E3); X2 '085 → the teaching that a magnet's geometry may be selected to control its path, which supplies the motivation to give the magnet‑plate a shape (self‑contained/annular path) that keeps its own flux from interfering with the coil; Mojo '664/'470 → magnets used directly in the wireless‑power transfer region, rebutting any argument that placing a magnet near a receiver coil is somehow non‑obvious.

Motivation: (A) same field; (B) X2 '085 supplies the "shape the magnet to control its flux" technique; (C) Mojo supplies the known use of magnets within wireless power systems; (D) the objective of concurrent mounting and charging is expressly what the '223 identifies. This ground is the best answer to the E4 point, which Grounds 1–2 handle only through Rothbaum.

Ground 4 (fallback/alternative): Spigen '172 or '418 + Samsung '958

If the §102(b)(1)/(b)(2) exceptions for the commonly owned Spigen references can be defeated, this is the shortest path to claim 1: '172/'418 supply E1–E4 verbatim (including the plate‑as‑magnet alternative and the plate "placed between the soft protective cover and the hard protective frame"), and '958 supplies E5. Do not build the primary case on this ground without first resolving inventorship/ownership.

Ground 5: use the patentee's own family as admissions

The '119 patent's abstract and specification (US10469119) and the '172 specification are usable as evidence of the state of the art and as admissions (the background admits metal‑plate magnetic mounts; the '172 spec admits a circular or rectangular plate, a recessed mount, and the plate‑as‑magnet alternative), even where the documents themselves are excepted as §102 art.

5. Dependent claims 2–10

Applying MPEP 2144.04 (design choice) and 2144.05 (result‑effective variable / routine optimization), each dependent claim falls with or before claim 1:

Structural‑inherency note for E5: "positioned to substantially allow magnetic waves to pass" is functional language coextensive with the recited geometry. A reference disclosing a plate whose material is absent from the inner‑boundary projection necessarily performs that function; the function adds nothing to patentability. Similarly, claims 5 and 6 are mutually exclusive alternative placements, both disclosed/rendered obvious; at least one alternative must be shown, and each is independently obvious.

6. Anticipated rebuttals and where the invalidity case is weakest

Patentee's best argument — the Table 1 data. Table 1 reports: no case 170–250 mA (avg 210), FIG. 4B configuration 90–230 mA (avg 190), FIG. 4C configuration 40–180 mA (avg 80). The 190 vs. 80 mA gap between two plate configurations is the only experimental support the patent offers. Three responses:

1. No nexus to claim 1. The tested plates are ferromagnetic (steel) plates; claim 1 requires the plate to be a magnet. The demonstrated comparison does not involve the claimed subject matter. This is a nexus failure, not a strength.
2. The comparison is between two configurations of the same concept, not against the prior art. 4C (80 mA) still charges; the difference is one of degree for a result‑effective variable already recognized in the art — the amount and position of metal over the coil. That is routine optimization of a known variable, not an unexpected result (MPEP 2144.05; cf. In re Applied Materials, 692 F.2d 1289 (CCPA 1982)).
3. No teaching away. The prior art affirmatively directs keeping the coil's winding center clear ('958's cutout, '727's hole/inner‑space extension). A reference that points toward the claimed configuration cannot support an unexpected‑results or teaching‑away rebuttal.

The Otter '427 double edge. Otter places its high‑permeability core at the coil's center region, which the patentee may argue teaches away from leaving the inner‑boundary area open. Rebuttal: (i) Otter's element is a thin, high‑permeability flux concentrator, functionally the opposite of a solid metal magnet plate that blocks flux — the artisan would not read Otter as endorsing blocking; (ii) Otter itself warns that "case material may cause a shielding or blocking effect," i.e., it teaches the very problem; (iii) this is why Ground 1 should lead with Samsung '958, not Otter — '958 is unambiguous on the "leave the winding center open" direction, so Otter need only supply the case/coil context.

Other realistic defenses: (a) no motivation to convert a ferromagnetic "mounting plate" into a magnet — rebutted by Rothbaum's magnetic‑material case back, X2 '085's magnetic structures, Mojo '664's in‑system magnets, and the '172/'418 plate‑as‑magnet alternative (patentee's own document); (b) "the plate must be between cover and device" means something narrower than the art's "cover over the coil" — this is at bottom a claim‑construction dispute about E3, and Otter's case back and Rothbaum's recessed back both put the element between the device and the case exterior; (c) secondary considerations — commercial success of Spigen MagSafe‑style cases: expect a proffer, but the burden of establishing nexus to the claim‑1 geometry (rather than to the category of magnetic cases generally) is the patentee's, and the intervening-assignment history (2025‑12‑19 assignment to Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd.; whether the 2026 W.D. Tex. plaintiff Magnova LLC is owner or exclusive licensee is unverified) complicates any commercial‑success narrative.

7. An alternative, independent attack worth developing: the priority date for claim 1

The '223 claims a divisional chain to the 2017‑05‑25 provisional 62/511,280. But claim 1's two distinctive limitations — (i) the plate "is made of a magnet which produces magnetic flux" and (ii) the "orthographic parallel projection of the area formed by the inner boundary" language — must each have §112 written‑description support in the provisional and the intermediates ('119, '838) to secure that date. In the supplied '223/'838 text, the plate‑as‑magnet appears only as an alternative sentence ("Alternatively, the magnet (50) may be made of ferromagnetic material and the metal plate (30) may be made of a magnet which produces magnetic flux"), and the "orthographic parallel projection" phrasing appears in the description but was drafted into a claim only here. If either limitation lacks the requisite support in the earlier chain, claim 1's effective filing date slides forward (to 2019‑09‑24, 2021‑07‑22, or later).

Consequence: a later effective date sharply expands the §102/§103 universe — e.g., Samsung's US 2018/0144861 A1 ("Electronic Device Including Conductive Housing," pub. 2018‑05‑24), which describes "a hole located in a first region of the rear cover that corresponds to the space of the first coil," is a near‑verbatim teaching of E5 that would become available. (That document was surfaced in my searches but is not on the '223 page's prior‑art list, so I use it here only illustratively.) I cannot confirm the provisional's content from the sources available, so this is flagged as a lead to investigate, not a conclusion — and it is a §112/priority argument, outside the §103 question proper.

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is very likely invalid under § 103. The strongest ground is Samsung Electro‑Mechanics US 2017/0098958 A1 (plate/cover with a cutout at the coil's winding center and arc‑shaped tiles arranged concentrically about the coil axis) in view of Rothbaum US 2011/0192857 A1 (case back of magnetic metal, magnetically retained support accessory), further in view of Otter Products US 2016/0294427 A1 (device‑receiving case, magnetic‑element alignment with the charging coil, and express recognition that case material attenuates charging). Samsung US 2017/0077727 A1 is an independent, corroborating substitute for the '958 reference. Every element of claim 1, including the "does not overlap with an orthographic parallel projection of the area formed by the inner boundary" limitation, is disclosed in this set, and the motivation is supplied by the art's own common problem statement.
• The single limitation no reference squarely discloses in terms is E4 ("the metal plate is made of a magnet which produces magnetic flux"). It is, however, rendered obvious by Rothbaum, by X2 Power US 2017/0117085 A1, by Mojo Mobility US 2016/0056664 A1, and — most tellingly — by the patentee's own US 2017/0035172 A1/US 2017/0155418 A1 specification. Defeating the §102(b)(1)(A)/§102(b)(2)(C) exceptions for those commonly owned Spigen documents would materially strengthen the case; absent that, they remain powerful admissions.
• Claims 2–10 fall with claim 1, or earlier, under routine‑optimization and design‑choice rationales (MPEP 2144.04, 2144.05).
• Weak points to verify at source before filing anything: (i) the exact disclosure and figure support in '958 and '727 for the curved‑edge‑versus‑coil geometry; (ii) Otter '427's treatment of its core as a flux concentrator (needed to pre‑empt a teaching‑away argument); (iii) the inventorship/ownership record for US 2017/0035172 and US 2017/0155418 as of the relevant dates; and (iv) whether the provisional 62/511,280 and the '119 parent support the "magnet plate" and "orthographic parallel projection" limitations.
• Litigation relevance: for the pending W.D. Tex. matter the patent page flags (7:26‑cv‑00056, reported as asserting the '223 and '119 patents against MagSafe‑compatible cases), the obviousness positions above are the natural invalidity theory, and the thin prosecution history (one non‑final action, one allowance) plus the fact that all four principal references were of record makes an IPR petition on the '958 + Rothbaum + Otter combination a plausible parallel strategy — noting again that the aggregator‑sourced docket details and the ownership chain from Intellectual Discovery to any named plaintiff remain unverified by me.