US 11989612

I'll research US patent 11989612 across USPTO and litigation sources.

Let me dig into the claims and any litigation involving this patent.

Let me retrieve the actual claim language and check for any Federal Circuit activity.

US Patent 11,989,612 — Analyst Summary

Sourcing note: The bibliographic and specification statements below are grounded in the authoritative patent text you supplied (Google Patents fetch of US11989612B1, dated 2026‑09‑23) plus a small number of secondary sources I located. Items drawn from secondary sources are labeled as such, and I flag where I could not verify something authoritatively.

1. Bibliographic Data

Priority chain (continuations, per Google Patents "Priority claimed from" entries): a chain running from 2006 applications (US 11/382,050; 11/382,052; 11/382,053; 11/382,054; 11/382,264; 11/382,265), through US 11/420,721, US 11/458,620 (→ US 7,924,156 B2), US 12/577,209 (→ US 8,816,826 B2), US 14/660,825 (→ US 9,569,777 B2), US 16/186,543 (→ US 11,170,185 B2), to US 17/728,412. Later filings also claim priority to/from US 17/952,176 (→ US 11,687,741 B1) and US 18/422,929 (→ US 12,039,396 B2).

Uncertainty note: The "expires 2026‑12‑01" figure is what the Google Patents page reports, and it implies a term tied to an earlier family member (e.g., via terminal disclaimer) rather than 20 years from the 2022 filing. I did not independently verify the disclaimer in the patent's file wrapper.

2. Abstract

Secondary source (Golden wiki entry for "US Patent 11989612 Cellular telephone including biometric sensor") reproduces the abstract as:

"Various switchable devices, e.g., cellular telephones, including inductive antennas are disclosed. These switchable devices may include one or more switches and a biometric sensor. Some of these one or more switches are optionally wireless and/or manual. In various embodiments, the switchable devices include are included within cellular phones, security devices, identity devices, financial devices, remote controls, and the like. The switchable devices are optionally configured to perform financial transactions."

⚠️ Caution: The abstract was not reproduced in the Google Patents text you supplied, and the sibling publication's abstract language is very similar. Treat the wording above as a secondary‑source abstract, not an authoritative transcription. The claim set is what matters and, per the litigation record, is materially narrower than this abstract.

3. Specification Context (authoritative, from supplied text)

The supplied specification is the long-running Mynette/Colby RFID family disclosure. Its stated field is "electronic passports, and more specifically … electronic passports including shielding and/or switchable RFID tags," and it describes:

• Shielded containers/holders (wallets, purses, passport holders, shipping containers, vials) for IDs with RFID tags;
• Clamshell identity documents with shielding in one cover/page and an RFID tag in another;
• Switchable RFID tags with on/off or multi-state switches (mechanical, membrane, magnetic, optical, wireless, electronic);
• A communication‑device embodiment: "a portable communication device such as a cellular telephone, a blackberry, a wireless personal digital assistant," including "an optionally switchable RFID tag configured to communicate … via RFID technology as well as more distant devices using other RF technology such as Bluetooth, WiFi, WiMAX, 802.11 or cellular standards," with the user interface used to turn the RFID tag on/off, enter security data, enter a credit/debit card number, or enter an account number.

The specification also states that "voice recognition authentication may be required before an RFID tag is activated" and that "the user interface of the communication device is configured to receive an access code before the RFID tag is detectable." This is the disclosure most plausibly tied to the "biometric sensor" title, though the supplied text does not otherwise develop a dedicated biometric‑sensor embodiment.

Naming inconsistency to note: the patent's listed title is "Cellular telephone including biometric sensor," while the closely related sibling (US 2024/0160867 A1 → US 12,039,396 B2) is titled "Cellular Telephone Including Biometric Control of Transactions." I did not confirm the exact title printed on the face of the '612 patent independently of Google Patents.

4. Independent Claims — Plain‑Language Overview

⚠️ Important limitation: I was not able to retrieve the authoritative claim text of US 11,989,612 within this session. The following is derived from a secondary litigation‑analysis source (Ex Parte (ai‑lab.exparte.com) analyssis of the complaint in SureCell Transactions LLC v. [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.), E.D. Tex. 2:26‑cv‑00106). Do not rely on it as verbatim claim language.

Per that source, asserted claims in suit are claims 1–5, and the patent:

"claims methods of performing financial transactions by placing a cellular telephone near a point‑of‑sales device. The method includes activating an electronic switch within the phone to change the circuit's state, with the activation being responsive to a biometric sensor, which then allows financial account information to be communicated."

Plain‑language reconstruction of the likely independent claim(s):

1. A method of conducting a financial transaction in which a cellular telephone is brought into proximity with a point‑of‑sale device.
2. An electronic switch internal to the telephone is activated to change a state of a circuit (e.g., unlock/enable the short‑range communication path).
3. That activation is responsive to a biometric sensor (e.g., fingerprint/face/voice authentication on the phone).
4. Once in the enabled state, financial account information is communicated (RFID/NFC short‑range link) to the point‑of‑sale device.

Claims 2–5 appear to be dependent claims narrowing sensor type, communication modality, and/or data content. I cannot confirm the number or exact wording of independent claims, whether there is a system/apparatus independent claim in addition to the method claim, or the precise preamble language.

5. Litigation and Docket Check

District court (active):

• SureCell Transactions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al, No. 2:26‑cv‑00106 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), filed February 12, 2026.
• Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Roy S. Payne; Nature of suit 830 (Patent); cause 15:1126; jury demand; damages demand $500,000,000.
• Unified Patents litigation link from the patent page: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00106
• Darts‑IP "first worldwide family litigation" flag for family 80356977.
• Co‑asserted patents in the same complaint (per the Ex Parte summary): US 11,599,734 ("Methods of Inductive Communication in a Cellular Telephone," claims 1, 15, 23), US 11,989,612 (claims 1–5), and US 12,039,396 ("Cellular Telephone Including Biometric Control of Transactions," claims 1–17 and 19–20).
• Accused products described as Samsung mobile devices/wearables (Galaxy S/Note/Z Fold/Flip/A series, Galaxy Watch) using NFC authenticated by biometric sensors, Samsung Pay, Samsung Blockchain Wallet.

CAFC / Federal Circuit 2026 dockets:

• I found no Federal Circuit docket or appeal in 2026 involving US 11,989,612, SureCell Transactions LLC, Mynette Technologies, or case 2:26‑cv‑00106. The E.D. Tex. case was filed in February 2026 and the searches surfaced no notice of appeal. This is a negative result, not proof of absence — I could not run a direct CAFC docket query (e.g., PACER/CM‑ECF) within this session.

6. Confidence and Caveats

• High confidence: patent number, application number, filing date, issue date, inventor, assignee history, priority date, the E.D. Tex. case number/parties/filing date.
• Medium confidence: the abstract wording (secondary source); the "adjusted expiration 2026‑12‑01."
• Low confidence / unverified: the exact text, number, and scope of the independent claims — I was unable to retrieve the patent's own claim set. Any claim‑scope statement should be re‑verified against the face of the patent or the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Public Search record.
• No evidence found of any CAFC 2026 activity for this patent; absence of evidence here is not evidence of absence.

I'll search litigation databases and dockets for US 11,989,612.

Let me check for additional cases involving this patent and confirm docket details.

Let me check for any other cases, prior assignee litigation, and the Unified Patents/Darts-IP records.

Litigation Involving US Patent 11,989,612

Search scope: Unified Patents litigation portal (case list), Google Patents litigation annotations, PACER/RECAP-derived docket aggregators (CourtListener, Justia, Dockets.Justia), Darts‑IP, PTAB/PTActs, and news/secondary coverage. I searched the literal number string 11989612 / 11,989,612 and did not substitute or auto‑correct any identifier.

Bottom line

Exactly one litigation is known to assert US 11,989,612 — a district‑court case in the Eastern District of Texas filed in February 2026. No PTAB (IPR/PGR), ITC Section 337, or Federal Circuit proceeding involving this patent surfaced.

1. The case that asserts the '612 patent

Sources

• Docket aggregator (case caption, court, filing date, judges, demand): https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--26-cv-00106/SureCell_Transactions_LLC_v._SAMSUNG_ELECTRONICS_AMERICA_INC._et_al/
• Complaint analysis (asserted claims, accused products, technology synopsis): https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00106/doc/analysis/9
• Unified Patents litigation link carried on the patent page: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00106
• Darts‑IP "first worldwide family litigation" flag for family 80356977
• Korean-language coverage confirming the six asserted patents and the accused Galaxy devices: http://www.the-biz.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=707046

Co-asserted patents in the same complaint

Per the complaint analysis and Korean coverage, the '612 patent is one of six asserted in 2:26‑cv‑00106:

Accused products: Samsung Galaxy S / Note / Z Fold / Flip / A‑series smartphones, Galaxy Watch wearables, Galaxy Tab tablets; Samsung Pay (Samsung Wallet), Samsung Blockchain Wallet, and third‑party payment apps; NFC authenticated by fingerprint/biometric or PIN.

2. Related family litigation (does NOT involve the '612 patent)

Mynette Technologies, Inc. and Steven M. Colby v. United States, No. 1:16‑cv‑01647‑RTH (Fed. Cl.), filed December 14, 2016 — a § 1498 action against the U.S. (State Dept./Passport Office, DHS) with intervenor‑defendants Gemalto, Idemia Identity & Security USA, Unisys, and (later) Thales DIS USA.

• It asserted US 7,719,425; 7,924,156; 9,524,458; and 9,569,777 — not the '612 patent, which did not exist until 2024.
• Claim construction issued Aug. 17, 2018; sanctions entered Dec. 20, 2022 for plaintiff's counsel's undisclosed interest in Mynette; a broad covenant not to sue covering "all of Mynette's current and future patents" was ordered; the case settled (notice of settlement Aug. 29, 2025; judgment Sept. 25, 2025).
• Important caveat: the CNS runs to the United States, Thales DIS, Idemia, and their customers/affiliates — Samsung is not a party to it, so on the record I found it does not bar the 2026 suit.
• Sources: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6294590/mynette-technologies-inc-v-united-states/, https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/federal-claims/cofce/1:2016cv01647/33829/68/0.pdf, https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/federal-claims/cofce/1:2016cv01647/33829/187/0.pdf

3. Negative results (searched, nothing found for '612)

• PTAB — IPR/PGR: no petition challenging US 11,989,612 located.
• ITC (Section 337): no investigation located involving SureCell/Mynette or the '612 patent.
• Federal Circuit: no appeal located arising from 2:26‑cv‑00106 or otherwise involving the '612 patent. (The case is only months old and no notice of appeal appeared in search results.)
• Other defendants/districts: no second suit asserting the '612 patent was found. SureCell Transactions LLC appears in only one case in the aggregator I checked (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/surecell-transactions-llc: "Total Cases 1 / Active Cases 1").

These are negative results, not proof of absence — I could not run a direct PACER/CM‑ECF or Docket Navigator query, and a very recently filed IPR petition or ITC complaint may not yet be indexed.

4. Corrections / flags relative to the earlier sections

1. Earlier summary understated the asserted-patent set. It listed three patents (11,599,734; 11,989,612; 12,039,396). The Korean trade coverage and the complaint analysis indicate six: add 7,924,156; 11,347,949; 11,687,741.
2. '396 issue date: the complaint analysis reports US 12,039,396 as issued July 16, 2024 (earlier summary echoed this); consistent.
3. Samsung entity: the caption is "Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al," so at least one additional defendant exists; Korean coverage names Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. I could not confirm the full caption from PACER directly.
4. Dating anomaly to disclose: the user-stated current date is April 26, 2026, but two retrieved sources (a Korean article and a UPC order) carry dates in September 2026 / June 2026, i.e., after that date. I am reporting the retrieved docket data as-is and flagging that the search index appears to contain post-April-2026 material. The filing date of Feb. 12, 2026 is consistently reported across sources and predates either date.
5. Title: the patent page lists the title as "Cellular telephone including biometric sensor" (matching the complaint analysis). The earlier note about a sibling titled "…Biometric Control of Transactions" remains accurate for the separate '396 patent.

5. Confidence

If you want, I can attempt a target-specific pull of the 2:26‑cv‑00106 docket sheet (answer/MTD/scheduling order) or of the PTAB and ITC records for the '612 patent — flagging that those require direct query access I did not have in this session.

I'll research the PTAB proceeding on this patent and related docket activity.

Let me search more specifically for this IPR and the related district court case.

Let me try to access the PTAB proceeding record directly and search for related Samsung IPRs against this patent family.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file against US 11,989,612: IPR2026-00510, filed 2026‑09‑22 by [[Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.), status Pending. That is the entire count — there are no claims invalidated, none sustained, none settled, and no institution decision, FWD, or appeal associated with this patent. Because the petition was filed only yesterday (2026‑09‑22) relative to today's date (2026‑09‑23), the bottom‑line defensive posture is "too early to tell": the patent is not hardened in the IPR sense (no panel has ever passed on validity), but neither is any claim dead. A defendant today faces an untested patent in a freshly‑filed IPR, with the merits still a blank slate and no estoppel yet attached.

⚠️ Sourcing limitation: I could not retrieve the petition itself, the challenged‑claim list, the asserted grounds/art, the assigned panel, or a Patent Owner Preliminary Response within this session. Searches for "IPR2026‑00510" returned no PTAB or third‑party record of the filing. The proceeding entry below reflects only what the canonical structured data block supplies. I am explicitly not filling in grounds, art, or claim numbers I could not verify.

IPR2026-00510 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Mynette Technologies, Inc. / Surecell Transactions LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (per the structured data block; "IPR" designation)
• Filed: 2026-09-22
• Status: Pending (verbatim from structured data; last modified 2026-09-22). Plain-English gloss: the petition is docketed and awaiting the Patent Owner's preliminary response and the Director/Board's institution decision under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Nothing has been decided.
• Judge panel: Not public / not available. No APIJ panel assignment surfaced in my searches. Consistent with the Board practice, the panel is typically identified only when the institution decision issues.
• Petition grounds: Unknown — not verifiable. I found no public text of the petition. Which claims of the '612 patent are challenged, the references asserted, and whether the grounds are § 102 / § 103 / § 112 cannot be stated without the petition or the Patent Public Search docket. Do not assume the challenge mirrors the district‑court claims 1–5 (from the previously generated section) — IPR petitioners frequently challenge a different or broader claim set than is asserted in litigation.
• Institution decision: None issued. Statutory deadline is 6 months from the filing date → on or about 2027-03-22 (35 U.S.C. § 314(b)). Patent Owner's preliminary response is typically due within ~3 months of the § 312 notice, i.e., roughly late December 2026, absent an extension or a pre‑institution settlement.
• Final Written Decision: None. No FWD exists; therefore no claim has been canceled and no claim has been sustained in this proceeding. Any statement to the contrary would be fabrication.
• Settlement / termination: None reported. (Parties at this stage often resolve pre‑institution under § 317, with the agreement kept confidential per § 317(b) / 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) — but there is no indication of that here.)
• Appeal: None. No Federal Circuit appeal exists for this proceeding (there is nothing appealable pre‑institution). Note that the previously generated litigation section likewise found no CAFC activity involving this patent.
• Defensive value: Minimal so far, but strategically significant. Samsung — the same defendant accused in Surecell Transactions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:26‑cv‑00106 (E.D. Tex.) — has opened an IPR against the '612 patent within a year of service, so no § 315(b) time bar applies and Samsung preserves its validity challenge. Until institution issues, the patent is simply a live, untested assertion. Co‑defendants who are not the petitioner are unaffected by any future estoppel; petitioner Samsung and its privies will face § 315(e)(2) estoppel only if an FWD issues on claims it challenged.

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 11,989,612: no claim is CANCELED, no claim is SUSTAINED by the Board, and every claim remains UNTESTED before the PTAB. The only validity adjudication venue currently in play is the E.D. Tex. case, where (per the previously generated section) claims 1–5 are asserted. There is no PTAB narrowing to rely on, and therefore no "surviving claims" list to work from — the full claim set stands as issued. Any assertion that the '612 patent has been through the PTAB grind would be incorrect; IPR2026‑00510 is at hour one.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only after a final written decision, and only against the petitioner and its privies (Samsung here). Because no FWD exists, there is no estoppel on any party today, and a non‑Samsung defendant retains the full universe of § 102/§ 103 art and grounds — including any ground Samsung (or another petitioner) may later be estopped from raising. For a defendant other than Samsung, the practical implication is that IPR2026‑00510, if it is instituted, will develop an invalidity record you can leverage; if Samsung settles or abandons it, nothing binds you. For Samsung specifically, its own defensive options in the district court will be shaped by whatever it chose to put in the petition once an FWD issues — which makes monitoring the petition's grounds important for anyone coordinating a joint defense.

Pattern signals. This is a single IPR on a single patent so far, not the multi‑IPR pattern Samsung sometimes runs (compare its Wilus and Netlist campaigns, where it filed numerous parallel IPRs). There is no evidence of a defensive aggregator such as Unified Patents as petitioner here — the petitioner is Samsung, the accused defendant, which is the ordinary posture. The patent owner has not yet had anything to appeal, so there is no pattern of aggressive PTAB appellate pursuit to report. One signal worth noting: this is a 2005‑priority family (earliest priority 2005‑05‑06) with a Google Patents "adjusted expiration 2026‑12‑01," which, if accurate, means the patent's enforceable life is short — a fact that should drive any decision on whether to invest in IPR or simply wait out the term. I have not verified the terminal disclaimer underlying that date.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the actual petition. Within days, retrieve IPR2026‑00510 from USPTO PTAB E2E / PatentCenter (and the USPTO Open Data Portal) to obtain the challenged claim list, the § 102/§ 103 grounds, the art, and the panel once assigned. My searches returned nothing public on this filing, so the petition text is the single highest‑value document to obtain. [USPTO PTAB E2E — https://ptacts.uspto.gov; Patent Public Search — https://ppubs.uspto.gov]
2. Calendar the statutory milestones (from filing 2026‑09‑22):
   • Patent Owner Preliminary Response: ~2026‑12‑2026 (roughly 3 months post‑notice)
   • Institution decision due: ~2027‑03‑22 (§ 314(b), 6 months)
   • If instituted, FWD due within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11))
   • Director Review window after institution decision (~30 days for the losing side to request)
3. Determine whether Samsung stipulated. A district‑court stay (Samsung has moved to stay in related Wilus cases) often turns on a Sotera-style stipulation. Whether Samsung will stipulate not to pursue in E.D. Tex. any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised will materially affect both the stay motion and non‑petitioner defendants' strategy.
4. Track the parallel family IPRs. The complaint asserts six family patents (US 7,924,156; 11,347,949; 11,599,734; 11,687,741; 11,989,612; 12,039,396). If Samsung has filed companion IPRs on the sibling patents, the '612 petition's quality and art overlap are best judged alongside them — but I could not confirm companion proceeding numbers in this session, so verify before assuming a pattern.
5. Check expiration before investing. Confirm the 2026‑12‑01 adjusted‑expiration date in the file wrapper. If the '612 patent expires that soon, the calculus for a full IPR, a stay, or a design‑around shifts sharply.
6. No CAFC hook exists yet — there is nothing to appeal and no Federal Circuit docket. Re‑check CourtListener for any appeal only after an FWD. [CourtListener — https://www.courtlistener.com]

Bottom line for a defendant being asserted against today: the troll's claims 1–5 are alive and untested; IPR2026‑00510 is pending and one day old, so the patent is neither hardened nor invalidated. There is no FWD to cite, no canceled claim to point to, and no estoppel yet. The near‑term play is to obtain the petition, watch the institution decision (~2027‑03‑22), and confirm whether the patent's term (reportedly expiring 2026‑12‑01) makes the whole dispute moot before an FWD can issue.

I'll research the ownership chain for US 11,989,612. Let me pull from assignment records, litigation sources, and corporate databases.

Let me search for the litigation docket and NPE/asserter directory data.

Let me dig into the assignment correspondents and corporate details.

I hit the research-step limit before I could pull the Assignment Center reel/frame fields and correspondent names directly. Here is the reconstruction with everything I could ground, and explicit flags on the fields I could not retrieve.

Inventors

Steven Michael Colby — sole named inventor (all family members list him alone; the '612 assignment names "COLBY, STEVEN MICHAEL" as assignor). Per the Court of Federal Claims pleadings (Mynette Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1647, Fed. Cl.), Colby is:

• an individual residing in Mountain View, CA (1194 Maria Privada, Mountain View, CA 94040);
• "an officer, director and shareholder of Mynette"; and
• the founder/principal of the assignee itself, not an employee-inventor of a third-party operating company.

Employer at filing: Not a large corporate employer. The applications were filed by Colby personally and were assigned to entities he controlled (Colby Trust → Mynette). He is the inventor-proprietor of the family.

Unusual-pattern check: Not present. The classic "all inventors leave the assignee within 12 months of filing" fire-sale tell does not apply — Colby never was a rank-and-file employee of a third party; he remained a Mynette principal through at least the 2022–2024 filings. A different governance anomaly is present, however: Mynette's co-owner Robert J. Yorio — of Carr & Ferrell LLP, Menlo Park — was simultaneously an owner/board member of Mynette and its litigation counsel. The Federal Circuit-adjacent sanctions opinion (Mynette Techs. v. United States, 163 Fed. Cl. 733 (2022)) turned on Yorio's undisclosed ownership interest while negotiating a protective order, and the court's CNS draft defines the "Mynette Parties" as "Mynette Technologies, Inc., and its owners Robert Yorio and Steven M. Colby." That is a concrete, cited fact, not a naming inference.

Original assignee

Mynette Technologies, Inc. — named as original assignee via the 2022-08-04 assignment (from Colby) reflected in the Google Patents legal events on the face of the supplied patent text.

• Entity/status: Delaware corporation, principal place of business listed as 149 Commonwealth Drive, Suite 1001, Menlo Park, CA 94025 (per the Fed. Cl. complaint). I could not independently verify current corporate good-standing in this session — treat "active/dissolved" as unverified.
• Primary line of business: Patent assertion. The court record is unusually explicit: "litigation is Mynette's only business activity." It is a classic non-practicing holder, not an operating company.
• Product embodying the claims: None identified. Mynette does not ship a cellular telephone or any product; it asserts against the U.S. government (ePassports) and licenses/enforces the portfolio.
• Current status: Portfolio appears to have been sold to Surecell Transactions LLC on 2026-01-15 (Google Patents legal events). Mynette's own current corporate status is unverified.

Assignment timeline

⚠️ Sourcing limitation (state plainly): I was not able to retrieve the Assignment Center's reel/frame numbers or the recorded correspondent-of-record for any link in this chain within this session — the research queries returned litigation and court records but not the assignment-center index rows. The dates, conveyance types, assignors, and assignees below come from the Google Patents legal-events block on the supplied patent text (authoritative for the '612 record) plus the Fed. Cl. findings (for the pre-2022 chain that the '612 claims priority through). Reel/frame and correspondent are flagged as not retrieved.

• 2016-09-25 (executed) / recorded 2016-09 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Steven M. Colby
  • Assignee: Steven M. Colby Trust
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal estate-planning reorg by the sole inventor (first leg of a two-step, same-week transfer).

• 2016-09-26 (executed) / recorded 2016-09 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Steven M. Colby Trust
  • Assignee: Mynette Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Second leg — inventor-family entity consolidated into the assertion vehicle (transfer-to-holder).

• 2022-04-25 — Application US 17/728,412 filed by Mynette Technologies Inc (applicant of record).

  • Context: Continuation filing within the Mynette/Colby family.

• 2022-08-04 (executed/recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest (see document for details) — per the Google Patents legal-events block on the supplied text.
  • Assignor: COLBY, STEVEN MICHAEL
  • Assignee: Mynette Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Confirmatory assignment of the '612 application to the original assignee (Mynette).

• 2024-05-21 — Patent US 11,989,612 B1 issues/granted (assignee of record: Mynette Technologies, Inc.).

• 2026-01-15 (executed/recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Mynette Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: SURECELL TRANSACTIONS, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Pre-litigation transfer-to-asserter — the entire portfolio (including '612) moves to Surecell ~28 days before Surecell files suit against Samsung.

• 2026-02-12 — SureCell Transactions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., No. 2:26-cv-00106 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., Judge Gilstrap) filed, asserting '612 (claims 1–5) plus US 7,924,156, 11,347,949, 11,599,734, 11,687,741, and 12,039,396; $500,000,000 damages demand; plaintiff jury demand.

If the Assignment Center index differs from the Google Patents events, prefer the Assignment Center record — verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "11989612").

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11989612
    2006 : Colby files RFID family applications
    2016 : Colby assigns to Steven M Colby Trust
         : Trust assigns to Mynette Technologies Inc
    2022 : Application 17 728 412 filed
         : Confirmatory assignment to Mynette
    2024 : Patent issued as US 11989612 B1
    2026 : Assigned to Surecell Transactions LLC
         : Surecell sues Samsung in E D Tex

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. Documented via the 2026-01-15 assignment of "ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST" from Mynette Technologies, Inc. to Surecell Transactions, LLC (Google Patents legal events). Nuance to state precisely: Mynette was never an operating assignee — the court record calls litigation "Mynette's only business activity" — so this is a transfer between two non-practicing holders, not an operating-to-shell move. The receiving entity (Surecell) is a single-purpose LLC that filed suit 28 days later. Marked present on the transfer-to-LLC fact; the "operating assignee" precondition is not met.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present (with caveat). Neither Mynette Technologies, Inc. nor Surecell Transactions, LLC matches the named lists in the task (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, Spangenberg, etc.) as far as I could check. I could not query RPX Insurance or the Unified Patents asserter directories directly, so this is unclear against those specific high-frequency-plaintiff datasets. Functionally, Mynette is a non-practicing entity (persistent §1498 and district-court assertion), which is independent evidence of NPE behavior even without a name-list hit.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not retrieved. The correspondent of record for both the 2022-08-04 Colby→Mynette assignment and the 2026-01-15 Mynette→Surecell assignment could not be retrieved from the Assignment Center in this session. This is the single most valuable field for confirming the pattern and it is unresolved here. Action item: pull reel/frame + correspondent for both recordings; if the same attorney/firm appears on both the 2016 Mynette formation assignments and the 2026 Surecell assignment, that recurs across the entire chain and is a strong repeat-correspondent finding.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present for the recent chain. The only tight cluster is the 2016-09-25 → 2016-09-26 two-step (Colby → Colby Trust → Mynette, within 24 hours). The 2026 Mynette → Surecell hop is ~9.5 years later, so there is no rapid multi-LLC cascade in the last 24 months. Marked not present; the 2016 same-week double recording is noted.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present (strong). Assignment executed/recorded 2026-01-15; infringement complaint filed 2026-02-12 (SureCell v. Samsung, No. 2:26-cv-00106) — an interval of roughly 28 days, comfortably inside the 6-month window. This is the cleanest, best-evidenced signal in the chain and supports a standing/venue-arrangement inference.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 or judicial-sale record for Mynette, Colby, or Surecell surfaced. The 2026 transfer is a negotiated assignment, not a court-supervised sale.

7. Privateering — Not present. Privateering requires an operating company transferring to an NPE to assert on its behalf. Here the origin is an individual inventor-proprietor (Colby) and his own holding entities; no operating-company IP donor exists. No SEC filing implicates a privateering parent.

8. Defensive aggregator — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at an active plaintiff that filed a $500M demand. Inverse signal confirmed: the patent is being asserted, not neutralized.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The strongest documentary drivers are: (a) the 2026-01-15 Mynette → Surecell Transactions, LLC assignment — an "assignment of assignor's interest" recorded 28 days before the 2026-02-12 Samsung complaint (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00106); (b) the Court of Federal Claims' own finding that "litigation is Mynette's only business activity," establishing the chain's principals as non-practicing; and (c) the absence of any product, with assertion instead against both the U.S. government (ePassports) and Samsung handsets. This is two strong signals plus consistent non-practicing-entity behavior, satisfying the high-confidence threshold. Caveat for the file: reel/frame numbers and the correspondents of record were not retrievable in this session, so the repeat-correspondent signal (item 3) remains open and should be closed before any final ownership memo is issued.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search patent number 11989612 (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Related docket: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A26-cv-00106.

I'll research US patent 11,989,612 and its cited prior art references.

Let me search more specifically for the patent's cited references and claim text.

Let me try to access the patent's front page citation list directly.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 11,989,612 B1

Important sourcing / limitation statement (read first)

I ran targeted searches against Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Justia, PTAB/PTACTS and general web sources for patent number 11,989,612. I was not able to retrieve the authoritative front‑page "(56) References Cited" list (the U.S. Patent Documents/foreign documents that the Examiner and applicant cited during prosecution). That list lives on the printed face of the patent and in the file wrapper, and none of the search results reproduced it.

Consequently, this section is not a transcription of the officially cited references. Instead it is divided into three clearly‑labeled categories:

⚠️ Flag / contradiction to prior section: The previously generated summary flagged that it could not retrieve the '612 claim set and that the asserted claims (1–5) appear to be method claims for financial transactions using a cellular telephone with an electronic switch activated responsive to a biometric sensor (per the E.D. Tex. complaint analysis). I also could not retrieve the authoritative claim text in this session. All § 102 mappings below therefore describe potential anticipation of claim concepts, not confirmed anticipation of verbatim claim limitations.

A. Applicant‑cited references appearing in the '612 specification (authoritative)

These are the references the applicant expressly identified in the specification you supplied. They were cited as background/parent art for the shielding and clamshell‑ID embodiments (which are shared across the Mynette/Colby family), not necessarily for the cellular‑telephone/biometric claims.

Reading: Every in‑text citation in section A predates the ~2005‑2006 family priority and is directed at shielding / card‑holder / folding‑card structures. None is directed at a biometric‑sensor‑activated switch in a cellular telephone for a financial transaction. That gap is important — it means the novelty of the '612's cellular‑telephone claims, if they survive, must rest on the switch/biometric/transaction limitations, not on the shielding art.

B. Family and priority‑linked documents (NOT § 102 prior art against '612)

Per the Google Patents page, these are the applications the '612 claims priority from or to, together with their resulting publications. Because they share the same inventive entity and priority chain, they cannot be used as § 102 prior art against '612; they are listed for completeness and to distinguish true prior art from family art.

C. Candidate third‑party prior art (topical leads — front‑page citation NOT confirmed)

The following were surfaced by my searches as references that independently disclose biometric authentication + a portable/cellular device + an RFID/NFC switch or response. I could not verify that any of these is listed on the '612 front page. They are the references a validity challenge would most likely run to, given the apparent claim scope (cellular telephone + electronic switch responsive to biometric sensor + financial account communication).

§ 102 analysis summary (with caveats)

Because I do not have the verbatim '612 claim text, the following is a conceptual mapping consistent with (a) the specification you supplied and (b) the secondary litigation analysis of asserted claims 1–5:

1. Shielding / clamshell‑ID / holder limitations (spec. §§ on passports, wallets, vials, clamshell IDs). The references in Section A (A1–A10) are classic § 102(a)/(b) art for the card/holder/folding‑card/faraday‑cage concepts. As applied by the applicant, they disclose the underlying card/case structure; '612 adds RFID‑tag‑plus‑shielding. These references are therefore meaningful only for the shielding sub‑combinations, not for the cellular‑telephone/biometric claims.

2. Biometric‑activated switch in a cellular telephone for a financial transaction (apparent asserted claims 1–5). The most pertinent § 102 candidates are the biometric‑portable‑device references in Section C — especially C1 (Ensign Holdings, biometric sensor coupled to a cellular telephone, device "activated" responsive to the biometric marker) and C3/C4 (RFID fob with switch 230 + biometric). Whether any anticipates depends entirely on limitations I could not verify (e.g., whether the reference recites the electronic switch changing a state of a circuit responsive to a biometric sensor and communicating financial account information to a POS device).

3. Family documents (Section B) are not § 102 art against '612 because they share the same priority chain/inventive entity. Any analysis that cites US 7,924,156, US 8,816,826, US 9,569,777, US 11,170,185 or US 12,039,396 as prior art against '612 would be an error — they are the same family. (⚠️ Worth double‑checking against the earlier summary, which treated some of these as "priority claimed from" relatives; they should be excluded from § 102 consideration.)

Confidence and what still needs verification

• High confidence: the Section A references are actually named in the '612 specification (verbatim from the supplied text); the Section B family/priority linkages.
• Medium confidence: that Section C references are topically the strongest third‑party prior art for the cellular‑telephone/biometric claims.
• LOW confidence / NOT verified: the actual front‑page "(56) References Cited" list of US 11,989,612. I could not retrieve it. To complete a proper § 102 study you must pull the patent's PDF face page or the USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter "References Cited" and the file‑wrapper "References cited by examiner," which typically differ from the applicant's in‑text citations.
• No result obtained for any PTAB/IPR citation list for '612, and no confirmation of a CAFC appeal (consistent with the earlier section's negative result).

Recommended next step to close the gap: retrieve the '612 PDF (USPTO PatentCenter or Google Patents "Download PDF") and transcribe the "(56) References Cited" block, then re‑run the § 102 mapping against the verbatim claims 1–5. Until that is done, treat the Section C table as leads, not as the patent's cited prior art.

I'll research the claim language and prior art for US 11,989,612 before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me try to retrieve the actual claim language and prior art citations for this patent.

Let me pull the actual claim set and cited prior art for the '612 patent.

Obviousness Analysis of US 11,989,612 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Sourcing note. This section builds on the earlier-generated bibliographic, abstract, specification, and litigation sections above. It does not repeat them. Two evidence-quality warnings that materially affect the § 103 analysis:

1. The Google Patents extract supplied to me does not contain a "References Cited" / "Prior Art" listing section. The only prior-art metadata in that extract is the algorithmic string "Prior art keywords: rfid tag, rfid, switch, tag, shielding" and "Prior art date: 2005-05-06." I therefore treat (a) the prior-art documents cited inside the specification text I was given (authoritative), plus (b) references I independently located, as the operative prior-art set. The full examiner-cited list on the '612 face was not retrievable in this session.
2. I was again unable to retrieve verbatim claim text for the '612. The analysis below is keyed to the claim language of the '612's own continuation-family siblings — US 2024/0160867 A1 and US 12,039,396 B2 — plus the litigation-derived description of the '612's asserted claims. Flagged contradiction with the earlier section: the earlier section (drawing on the Ex Parte complaint analysis) described the '612's claims 1–5 as method claims for "placing a cellular telephone near a point-of-sale device … activating an electronic switch … responsive to a biometric sensor." The sibling claim sets I located are apparatus claims ("A cellular telephone configured to use two or more different wireless communication modes …"). These are not reconcilable on the record I have; the mapping below covers both formulations, and the reader should re-verify against the '612 face.

1. The claim under analysis (reconstructed)

Claim 1 (apparatus formulation, per US 2024/0160867 A1 and US 12,039,396 B2):

A cellular telephone configured to use two or more different wireless communication modes, the cellular telephone comprising:

• circuits configured to operate in a first wireless mode for cellular operation and in a second wireless mode for short range communication, wherein the first and second modes are characterized by use of different radio frequency ranges and the circuits are configured to perform financial transactions;
• a biometric sensor, wherein the circuits are configured to approve the financial transactions responsive to the biometric sensor; and
• an inductive antenna configured for communication of signals in the second mode.

Claim 1 (method formulation, per the litigation-derived description): placing a cellular telephone in proximity to a point-of-sale device → activating an electronic switch within the telephone to change a state of a circuit, the activation being responsive to a biometric sensor → communicating financial account information to the point-of-sale device.

Dependent claims 2–20 (per the sibling set): mechanical switch / biometric + mechanical switch; transactions in second mode; transactions in first mode; WiFi; cellular network; POS communication in second mode; UI to enter a credit or debit card number; UI to select between financial accounts; UI to enter transaction amounts; slot accepting a memory device storing a key; encryption logic; keys within the phone to turn on/off second-mode transmission; keys to operate a lock; memory storing first and second financial account identifiers; unlock a car; identity device including a driver's license; recognition of a biometric required to approve; biometric sensor switching between first and second ON modes; RFID communication.

Observation on claim/title mismatch. The listed title emphasizes the biometric sensor, but claim 1's structural character is dominated by the two-mode / different-frequency / inductive-antenna architecture. This matters: the patentee's likely novelty story ("biometric authentication of a payment") is the limitation that the art most densely covers; the antenna/mode language is the least novel. This mismatch is typical of long-fuse continuation claims and is a leading indicator of § 103 vulnerability.

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA as of the 2005‑05‑06 assumed prior-art date would have had a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering (or equivalent) and about two years of experience in wireless communications and/or secure transaction systems, including familiarity with: ISO/IEC 14443 and ISO/IEC 18092/ECMA‑340 contactless and near-field interfaces; cellular air interfaces; biometric sensors (fingerprint, voice) in handheld devices; and distributed payment architectures. This framing is consistent with the POSITA definitions litigated in the related Mynette-family and neighboring RFID/NFC petitions (e.g., Samsung Elecs. v. Telcom Ventures, IPR2025‑00975/‑978/‑978 documents at ptacts.uspto.gov).

3. Prior art identified and its § 102 status

Because US 17/728,412 was filed 2022‑04‑25, the AIA § 102/§ 103 regime governs. But the claims only reach the 2005‑05‑06 date if the 2005–2006 disclosures support them (AIA § 102(d)(2)).

The Pizarro quotations and the Collinge/Fadell characterizations above are drawn from PTAB petition papers I retrieved (ptacts.uspto.gov petition artifacts for IPR2025‑00975/‑978 and related), and from the '813-patent IPR record; I have not re-verified the underlying patents' texts page-by-page. That caveat applies to the Pizarro pin cites in particular.

4. Element-by-element mapping for claim 1

Every element of the reconstructed claim 1 is disclosed or suggested in the pre‑2005‑05‑06 art. The only genuine question is whether the combination is supported by an articulated motivation — which is exactly where Pizarro + Kuffner is strongest.

5. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Pizarro in view of Kuffner (primary ground)

Rejection: Claim 1 (both formulations) is obvious over Pizarro in view of Kuffner.

• Pizarro supplies the cellular telephone, the biometric (fingerprint) sensor, biometric-responsive approval of a financial transaction, multiple selectable accounts, and communication with a POS.
• Pizarro does not squarely describe the first/second-mode split with different RF ranges and an inductive second-mode antenna. Kuffner cures that: it discloses a handheld device operating in cellular and short-range modes (Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11), expressly teaches that each mode occupies a distinct band and conventionally a distinct antenna resource, and expressly teaches reconfiguring/sharing antenna resources across modes.

Motivation / rationale (KSR categories):

• (C) Known technique improving a similar device in the same way. Adding a short-range radio and its antenna to a handheld multi-mode wireless device is the very technique Kuffner applies; applying it to Pizarro's payment-capable cellular telephone yields the predictable result of enabling proximity data exchange with a merchant terminal.
• (A) Combination of known elements with predictable results. Pizarro already contemplates exchanging transaction data with a terminal; Kuffner supplies the conventional hardware (a second band, a second antenna) for doing so within a handheld.
• (F) Market/design incentives. POS acceptance of contactless payment (see the "Smart Card Payphones" NPL, and the ISO 14443/18092 standards) created an express design incentive for handset makers to build short-range inductive interfaces into phones — this is the classic "design incentive … in the marketplace" rationale from KSR.
• (D) Known device ready for improvement. Pizarro's phone is a device "ready for improvement" precisely in the direction Kuffner teaches.
• Reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor (handheld wireless transaction devices); the modification is wiring an additional, standardized air interface into a phone, which the standards themselves (ISO/IEC 18092/ECMA‑340, an interface expressly invoked in NFC litigation as the protocol for contactless payment) rendered routine.

Anticipation of the "optimum range" and "design choice" arguments: If the patentee argues novelty in the particular frequencies (13.56 MHz vs. cellular bands), that is discovery of an optimum/workable range that is routine and obvious once the mode is selected (In re Aller). If the patentee argues novelty in which short-range mode is used (RFID/NFC vs. Bluetooth), that is a mere substitution of one known element for another yielding predictable results (MPEP § 2143, rationale B).

Ground 2 — Pizarro in view of Kuffner and further in view of WO 02/095589

Rejection: Claim 1 (method formulation, and dependent claims 12 and 18) is obvious over Pizarro in view of Kuffner and further in view of WO 02/095589 A1.

• WO 02/095589 supplies the explicit architecture in which a biometric verification of the user of a portable wireless device is a precondition to the transaction, with encryption of the biometric template ("compressing and encrypting the template to avoid interception during data communication"; memory 225 storing "software … for data encryption and packaging").
• Motivation: Pizarro's account-selection device and WO 02/095589's identity-verification device are both directed to authorizing a transaction initiated from a portable wireless device against a terminal/server. A POSITA seeking to prevent unauthorized use of a phone-as-wallet would combine the identity-verification precondition (WO 02/095589) with the account-selection and terminal communication of Pizarro, and would implement the disclosed encryption as a matter of ordinary engineering prudence (dependent claim 12). This is rationale (A) plus the ordinary recognition that a financial-account payload transmitted over a wireless link should be encrypted — routine and predictable.
• WO 02/095589's express alternatives (iris scan, speech recognition) also anticipate the patentee's attempt to claim broadly to "a biometric sensor."

Ground 3 — Pizarro in view of Kuffner, and Colby '930 (conditional)

Rejection (conditioned on the priority analysis in § 8): If the '612's claims do not carry the 2005‑05‑06 effective filing date, then US 2004/0233930 A1 (Colby Jr.) becomes available and reinforces Ground 1: it discloses a handheld personal device having a cellular module plus multiple other communication modes and two antennas, which is closer than Kuffner to an integrated "the same phone, more than one mode, more than one antenna" structure.

Caveats — state these carefully to avoid overclaiming:

• If the 2005‑05‑06 date holds, Colby '930 published 2004‑11‑25, inside the one-year window, and is likely excepted under AIA § 102(b)(1)(A) as an inventor-originated disclosure — provided the named inventor on the '930 publication is the same Steven Michael Colby (the publication is attributed as "Colby Jr." in PTAB papers; I could not confirm identity of inventorship from the face of the document). If the priority date does not hold, the grace period has expired and '930 becomes § 102(a)(1) art.
• The common-inventorship/common-ownership overlap also implicates AIA § 102(b)(2)(C) for the (a)(2) route — but note that § 102(b)(2)(C)'s common-ownership exception does not reach § 102(a)(1) printed publications, which is exactly how the family's own publications become qualitatively important (§ 8).

Ground 4 — Post-2005 art (only if the 2005 priority is broken)

If the effective filing date is 2022, the field of available art explodes. Two representative grounds:

• Ground 4A — Collinge in view of Fadell (and Kuffner). Collinge discloses a mobile device payment flow with a "Place your Mobile next to the Payment Terminal to pay…" prompt and expressly accommodates a "biometric identifier"; Fadell teaches a fingerprint sensor behind the home button of a cellular telephone used to authenticate the user. The articulated motivation, as recorded in the PTAB papers I retrieved, is instructive and would be reusable: "a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Collinge's button to be a fingerprint sensor used to authenticate a user based on the teachings of Fadell," because Collinge already accepts a biometric identifier, fingerprint sensors were well-known on mobile devices, and the results (increased security, replaced/augmented PIN entry) were predictable. Add Kuffner for the two-mode/different-frequency/antenna architecture.
• Ground 4B — Collinge or Pizarro in view of Jain-type NFC art. The NFC proximity-payment body of art (e.g., the Jain reference litigated against the '411 patent, teaching active-card-emulation mode, "proximate (e.g., 10 cm or less)" terminal detection, and ISO 18092/ECMA‑340) discloses the second element and the proximity trigger, with the express motivation that "biometrics … further improve system security" over PINs.

Because these references are used here only conditionally, I will not present full charts; the point is that the entire 2005–2022 corridor is lethally dense for this claim if the priority chain fails.

6. Dependent claims — grouped treatment

General point on dependents: several dependents are directed to features that the '612's own specification describes as pre-existing or conventional ("Two separate antennae are optionally used"; "MiniSD slot"; "voice recognition authentication"). Admissions of this kind in the specification are usable as evidence of the knowledge of a POSITA and, in some cases, as prior art against the same patent. That substantially collapses the dependent-claim defense.

7. Why a POSITA would have been motivated to combine (consolidated)

1. Same field of endeavor / reasonably pertinent art. Pizarro, Kuffner, Colby '930, and WO 02/095589 are all handheld wireless transaction/communication devices. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (predictable use of prior art elements "according to known methods").
2. Solution to an identified need, known options. Contactless payment acceptance (the "Smart Card Payphones" NPL; ISO/IEC 14443 and 18092/ECMA‑340) created a known problem for handset designers (how does the phone talk to the terminal?) and a finite set of known solutions (add a short-range inductive interface; Kuffner-type reconfigurable antennas). KSR at 421.
3. Predictable result / reasonable expectation of success. Wiring a standardized 13.56 MHz inductive interface into a handheld alongside a cellular radio was, by 2005, an engineering exercise with a known outcome, standardized by ISO/IEC 18092/ECMA‑340.
4. Security motivation. Both Pizarro and WO 02/095589 motivate biometric pre-authorization of the transaction; the record in the neighboring petitions states the point bluntly: biometrics "improve system security" over PINs because they "cannot be forgotten or obtained by a bad actor." That is an articulated, non-hindsight reason to add biometric approval to a phone-based payment.
5. Design incentive / market pressure. Witness the industry-wide convergence on phone-based inductive payment then underway; KSR rationale (F).

8. The pivotal threshold issue: priority and § 112 written description

This is where the '612 is most exposed, and it is a § 103 issue in disguise because it decides which art counts.

• The '612 issued on a 2022 application (US 17/728,412) claiming benefit back to 2005‑05‑06 through a chain of continuations. Under AIA § 102(d)(2), the claims get the 2005 date only if the earlier disclosures provide § 112 support for these claims.
• The 2005–2006 disclosure does contain colorable support: "a portable communication device such as a cellular telephone … includ[ing] an optionally switchable RFID tag configured to communicate with a local device via RFID technology as well as more distant devices using other RF technology such as Bluetooth, WiFi, WiMAX, 802.11 or cellular standards"; "the communication via the RFID tag is optionally at a different frequency than the communication using other technology"; "Two separate antennae are optionally used"; and "voice recognition authentication may be required before an RFID tag is activated." That is unusually strong textual support for the modes/different-frequency/biometric elements.
• However, the specification never develops a dedicated fingerprint sensor on a cellular telephone, never describes a point-of-sale device as such in connection with the telephone embodiment, and never describes the "approve the financial transaction responsive to the biometric sensor" architecture with the specificity of the granted claim. A defendant will argue the 2005–2006 applications do not convey possession of the claimed subject matter and that the effective filing date is therefore 2022‑04‑25. This is precisely the § 112 attack Samsung has already leveled at neighboring Telcom-family patents ("the common specification … lacks a written description of the alleged inventions of the Asserted Claims in full, clear, concise, and exact terms") and that is being leveled at the Mynette family in the co-pending litigation.
• Consequences if priority fails:
  • The entire 2005–2022 corridor becomes § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art (Collinge, Fadell, Jain-type NFC art, and the smartphone-era payment art).
  • The patent's own family publications become prior art. US 2006/0267737, US 2007/0200679–0200684, US 8,816,826, US 9,569,777, US 11,170,185, US 11,599,734, US 11,687,741, and US 12,039,396 are printed publications/patents under § 102(a)(1). The one-year grace period of § 102(b)(1)(A) is unavailable because they published more than one year before a 2022 effective filing date. The common-ownership exception in § 102(b)(2)(C) does not apply to § 102(a)(1) printed publications. In other words, Mynette's own family becomes its own best § 103 art — an unusually clean KSR fact pattern in which the missing element is supplied by the same disclosure.
  • Obviousness-type double patenting over US 11,170,185, US 11,599,734, US 11,687,741, and US 12,039,396 becomes a further squeeze (note that the Google Patents "Adjusted expiration 2026‑12‑01" implies a terminal disclaimer was filed, consistent with a prior ODP event in the family — I could not verify the disclaimer in the file wrapper).
• Collateral § 101 note: if the claims are construed broadly as "biometric authentication + payment + generic components," the Alice step-two analysis in Universal Secure Registry LLC v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), 10 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) — cited repeatedly as invalidating similar secure-payment claims — becomes a live threat. I raise this only because it is cited in the neighboring petition records; it is not a § 103 point.

9. Anticipated patentee rebuttals, and why they are weak on this record

10. Conclusion and confidence

Bottom line. On the reconstructed claim 1, the '612 is highly vulnerable under § 103, primarily via Pizarro in view of Kuffner (plus WO 02/095589 for the biometric-precondition and encryption dependents). Every element — cellular phone, biometric sensor, biometric-responsive transaction approval, multiple accounts, short-range mode, different frequency ranges, and inductive near-field antenna — is disclosed or suggested in art that predates the presumptive 2005‑05‑06 date. The motivation to combine is articulated by the same references that supply the missing elements and by contemporaneous industry and standards activity. If the priority claim to 2005‑05‑06 fails on written-description grounds, the case for obviousness becomes overwhelming, because the patent's own family publications supply the remaining subject matter and are not rescued by the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception.

Confidence:

• High — the prior-art references exist, are in the same field, and their disclosures (Pizarro's fingerprint sensor/multi-account disclosure; Kuffner's multi-mode/multi-antenna teaching; WO 02/095589's biometric precondition and encryption) support the mappings above; the AIA § 102(d) / § 102(b) analytical framework.
• Medium — the exact scope of '612 claim 1 (apparatus vs. method phrasing; claim count; whether claim 1 recites the "electronic switch" element). The earlier section and my own searches produced irreconcilable descriptions; this must be resolved against the patent face before any rejection is finalized.
• Low / unverified — the full "References Cited" list on the '612 face (the Google Patents extract I was given omitted it); the exact patent number/date for Collinge and Fadell (I have only the petition characterizations, not the underlying documents); the date/year of the Smart Card News NPL citation (I have only a truncated fragment from patents.justia.com/patent/11989612); the existence and terms of any terminal disclaimer explaining the "Adjusted expiration 2026‑12‑01."
• Negative results to treat cautiously — I found no CAFC 2026 activity for the '612 (consistent with the earlier section); absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I could not query PACER/CM‑ECF directly.

Recommended next steps to harden this analysis: (1) transcribe claim 1–5 of the '612 from the printed patent or USPTO Patent Public Search; (2) pull Pizarro US 7,865,448, WO 02/095589, and Kuffner US 2003/0235167 full texts and pin-cite every limitation; (3) confirm the named inventor on US 2004/0233930 A1 to settle the § 102(b)(1)(A) question; (4) obtain the '612 file wrapper to determine whether any priority/§ 112 issue was raised and whether a terminal disclaimer was filed.