US 8646042

I'll search for current information on US 8646042, including any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me pull the claim set and check the second CAFC docket referenced.

US 8,646,042 B1 — Summary

Sources consulted: the Google Patents full text supplied to me (treated as authoritative for the specification/abstract), plus live searches of Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, the Unified Patents portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-8646042-B1), RPX Insight (insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US8646042B1), Dockets.Justia.com, and Docket Alarm. I could not reach USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or PACER directly, so bibliographic data below is from those public mirrors.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim from the patent)

"A hybrid device includes a personal digital key (PDK) and a receiver-decoder circuit (RDC). In one embodiment, the hybrid device also provides a physical interconnect for connecting to other devices to send and receive control signals and data, and receive power. The hybrid device operates in one of several modes including, PDK only, RDC only, or PDK and RDC. This allows a variety of system configurations for mixed operation including: PDK/RDC, RDC/RDC or PDK/PDK. The disclosure also includes a number of system configurations for use of the hybrid device including: use of the hybrid device in a cell phone; simultaneous use of the PDK and the RDC functionality of hybrid device; use of multiple links of hybrid device to generate an authorization signal, use of multiple PDK links to the hybrid device to generate an authorization signal; and use of the hybrid device for authorization inheritance."

Independent claims — plain language

Claim 1 (apparatus — the hybrid device). One physical device that contains both halves of the Proxense system:

• an integrated PDK — the "credential" side, a wireless store of user-specific information that can talk wirelessly to at least one external RDC outside the device; and
• an integrated RDC — the "reader" side, which can talk wirelessly to at least one external PDK that comes within its proximity zone.

Internally, the integrated RDC is wired to the integrated PDK by a first signal line (so the two halves can talk to each other), and is also wired to at least one other component of the device by a second signal line. Either the internal RDC, the internal PDK, or both together enable an application, a function, or a service — either on the hybrid device itself or on a device associated with the external RDC. (In FIG. 11, signal line 1104 couples PDK 102a to RDC 304a; signal line 1106 couples the RDC to other devices and can also carry power, so the hybrid device need not have its own power source.)

Claim 10 (method).)

1. Create a first wireless link between the integrated RDC of the hybrid device and an external PDK (the hybrid device also containing its own integrated PDK).
2. Receive a first signal at the integrated RDC over that wireless link from the external PDK.
3. Generate an enablement signal that enables an application, function, or service on the hybrid device and/or on a device associated with an external RDC.
4. Send the enablement signal to the hybrid device and/or to the device associated with the external RDC.

There are also independent claims other than these — the PTAB oral-hearing transcript in Microsoft v. Proxense, IPR2024‑00573 (May 13, 2025) refers to "the independent claims" (plural) and to "three different claim terms recited in the independent claims." The claim-construction exhibit filed in Proxense v. Apple, No. 6:24‑cv‑00143 (W.D. Tex.) addresses "the '042 patent claims 1, 6." I therefore cannot confirm the total claim count or the exact identity of every independent claim.

Uncertainty flags: (1) total number of claims and existence of a third or further independent claim — not verified; (2) the one-day filing/grant discrepancies between Google Patents and Unified Patents — not resolved without PAIR.

Constructions of the key claim terms (relevant to any reading of the claims)

From the Proxense v. Samsung construction as carried into Proxense v. Apple: "hybrid device" ≈ "A device comprising an integrated personal digital key (PDK) and an integrated receiver-decoder circuit…"; "personal digital key (PDK)" ≈ an operably connected collection of components including an antenna and a transceiver for communicating with an RDC and a memory for storing information; "receiver-decoder circuit (RDC)" ≈ a component or collection of components for wirelessly receiving data in an encrypted format and decoding the encrypted data for processing.

2024–2026 dispute activity touching this patent

• PTAB IPR2024‑00573 (Microsoft Corp. v. Proxense, LLC, patent 8,646,042 B1) — oral hearing held May 13, 2025; Google Patents' docket block lists it as reaching a Final Written Decision. Petitioner's argument centered on whether three claim terms in the independent claims are means-plus-function.
• Google Patents' litigation block for this patent also lists IPR2024‑01318 (filed, not instituted — procedural), IPR2024‑01398, IPR2024‑01399, and IPR2024‑00782 (Final Written Decisions).
• CAFC 26‑1025 — Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (Appellees Microsoft and Apple), filed Oct. 8, 2025; RPX lists originating PTAB cases IPR2024‑01398 and IPR2024‑00573; the court docket shows it designated a companion of 25‑2130 (Nov. 7, 2025) and a certified list received Nov. 20, 2025.
• CAFC 26‑1291 — listed on the Google Patents page as a Federal Circuit filing involving this family. My searches returned no usable docket detail for 26‑1291; I could not confirm its parties, the PTAB/DC case it arises from, or its status, so I would not characterize it.
• District court: W.D. Tex. cases 6:24‑cv‑00143 (Proxense v. Apple) and 6:23‑cv‑00320 are listed on the Google Patents page; the '042 patent was among the patents addressed in Apple's proposed constructions in 6:24‑cv‑00143.
• Related claim-language: in the Proxense v. Apple/Microsoft briefing and the April 2026 CAFC opening brief (IPR2024‑00846/'954 and IPR2024‑00233), Proxense argues about PTAB stays of parallel reexaminations and about construction of "third party that operates a trusted authority." Those specific arguments concern US 8,886,954, not the '042 patent.

I'll research the litigation record for US 8,646,042 B1 specifically, checking the litigation-tracking portals, the PTAB/Federal Circuit dockets, and the district court cases already surfaced in the prior sections.

Good — I've confirmed the district court cases. Now let me pin down each case's status, the settlements, and the Federal Circuit appeals.

Now let me pin down the Federal Circuit appeals and confirm the status of the Microsoft, Google, and Apple district court cases.

Litigation involving US 8,646,042 B1 — as retrieved (search date 2026-09-30; most recent events reflected below are from April 2026)

Scope discipline used: I searched for case records in which US 8,646,042 specifically appears as an asserted patent. Because Proxense asserts the '042 alongside five other patents (and because two different Proxense patents — US 9,049,188 and US 9,235,700 — carry the identical title "Hybrid device having a personal digital key and receiver-decoder circuit and methods of use"), several secondary sources conflate the '042 with its siblings. I have separated those out explicitly below rather than merging them.

Headline: The '042 patent has been asserted in three U.S. district court actions (all W.D. Tex., all against large platform defendants), two of which have settled or are stayed, and is the subject of at least one Federal Circuit appeal (No. 26‑1025) plus five PTAB trials. It has not been asserted against Samsung or Intel, despite those campaigns being part of the same enforcement program.

---

A. District court cases in which US 8,646,042 was actually asserted

Detail on each

(1) Microsoft — 6:23‑cv‑00319‑ADA. Complaint filed by David L. Hecht (Hecht Partners LLP); the '042 is Exhibit 4 to the complaint. Proxense asserted six patents: US 8,352,730, 8,886,954, 9,298,905, 8,646,042, 9,679,289 and 10,073,960 (the '042, '289 and '960 are grouped in the briefing as "Family B"). The '042 was pleaded at claim 10 in Microsoft's amended preliminary invalidity contentions and shifted to claim 1 by the time of Proxense's final infringement contentions (served July 2024). Accused instrumentality: "Microsoft's Universal Passwordless Architecture" (Microsoft Authenticator, Windows Hello, Platform Credential for macOS, FIDO2 keys, Microsoft Entra). Microsoft filed an MTD and obtained a stay; the case remained stayed as of the April 3, 2026 Federal Circuit opening brief in the related '954 appeal, which lists it as "Stayed."

(2) Google — 6:23‑cv‑00320‑ADA. Google sought mandamus to transfer out of W.D. Tex. (In re Google LLC, Fed. Cir.) and lost. The operative Second Amended Complaint (Nov. 25, 2024) asserts claim 1 of the '042 against Google's "universal password-less architecture" (Android OS authenticator, Titan Security Key, Google Identity, Google Pay/Wallet). Google settled on January 24, 2025 (ip fray), while its IPR2024‑00782 against the '042 continued — a settlement of the district court case but not of the IPR.

(3) Apple — 6:24‑cv‑00143‑ADA. Proxense's opening brief in the related appeal confirms: "In Proxense v. Apple Inc., a motion to lift the stay and dismiss the 954 Patent with prejudice filed by Patent Owner is fully briefed and currently pending determination." Apple's proposed constructions in this case (filed Nov. 5, 2024) are the vehicle through which the '042's "personal digital key," "receiver-decoder circuit" and "enablement signal" terms were addressed; notably, Proxense agreed in that case that PDK and RDC are not § 112(f) terms (a position it reversed at the PTAB).

---

B. Federal Circuit appeals

Grounds on appeal in 26‑1025 (from Proxense's Notice of Appeal, Oct. 6, 2025): (i) APA violation for failure to consider a prior district court claim construction of identical terms; (ii) violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) / Rain Computing, HTC v. IPCom, Aristocrat; (iii) the Board's determination that the claims do not invoke pre‑AIA § 112 ¶ 6; and (iv) the Board's unpatentability determination.

---

C. PTAB proceedings on the '042 (administrative, cross-referenced — not repeated in full)

Five AIA trials, all inter partes review, all on US 8,646,042, four reaching merits:

• IPR2024‑00573 — Microsoft Corp. v. Proxense (Apple joined via IPR2024‑01398); FWD Aug. 4, 2025 (claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 14 unpatentable, § 103).
• IPR2024‑00782 — Google LLC v. Proxense (Apple joined via IPR2024‑01399); FWD Nov. 12, 2025.
• IPR2024‑01318 — Google LLC v. Proxense; not instituted (procedural) — conditional/ranked joinder petition.

These are the only PTAB cases I found keyed to the '042 itself. I found no ITC § 337 investigation and no foreign litigation specifically on the '042 — a Darts‑IP "first worldwide family litigation" link exists for the family, but I cannot confirm any non‑US assertion of the '042.

---

D. Cases commonly conflated with the '042, but which did not assert it

These are part of the same Proxense campaign and are frequently cited alongside the '042; I am flagging them so the list above is not over-inclusive.

Why the conflation happens: US 9,049,188 and US 9,235,700 are continuations that carry the identical title "Hybrid device having a personal digital key and receiver-decoder circuit and methods of use" as the '042 (continuation chain: 60/992,953 → 12/329,329 → 13/445,825 (the '042) → 14/171,705 → 14/677,893 → 14/961,645 → 15/595,739 → 16/048,044). Samsung's '188/'700 asserted claims were the ones that produced the "hybrid device" claim-construction order in Proxense v. Samsung — that order is not a construction of the '042, though the parties treat it as persuasive. Third-party summaries that say Samsung "asserted hybrid device patents" are reading the '188/'700 title, not the '042.

---

E. Outcome / status summary for the '042

• District court: No case has reached judgment on the '042. Two of three defendants (Google — settled; Intel — not sued on the '042) are out; Microsoft and Apple remain stayed (Apple with a pending motion to lift the stay and dismiss as to the sibling '954 patent).
• PTAB: Four merits FWDs holding the challenged claims unpatentable; all four are on appeal, so no § 318(b) certificate of cancellation has issued and formal cancellation is not yet effective.
• Appellate: 26‑1025 pending (Proxense's APA/claim-construction appeal from IPR2024‑00573/01398), consolidated on the merits calendar with 25‑2130; companion-origin second docket 26‑1291 unverified.

---

F. What I could not verify (do not treat as findings)

1. CAFC 26‑1291 — parties, origin and status. The only open docket gap in this list.
2. The original Google complaint filing date in 6:23‑cv‑00320 (I have the operative Second Amended Complaint of Nov. 25, 2024; the original filing was contemporaneous with Microsoft's).
3. The Microsoft complaint date discrepancy — May 2, 2023 (CourtListener/docket) vs. April 28, 2023 (Microsoft's PTAB exhibit MS‑1004). Also, Microsoft's invalidity contentions reference Proxense infringement contentions "served on July 24, 2022," which predates the 6:23‑cv filing; I could not resolve whether this is a document error or reflects an earlier Proxense‑Microsoft dispute.
4. Whether any Proxense–LG Electronics action asserts the '042.
5. Any 2026 filings postdating the records I retrieved — the district court stay status and the CAFC briefing calendar should be re‑checked on PACER (https://pacer.uscourts.gov) and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=Proxense) before filing any opinion, and the PTAB status on PTAB E2E / PTACTS (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/).

Sources consulted: CourtListener dockets (6:23‑cv‑00319; 6:24‑cv‑00143 docket sheet as Ex. 1027 in IPR2024‑01399); Justia Dockets (CAFC 26‑1025, retrieved Nov. 20, 2025); RPX Empower/Insight (26‑1025; 7:25‑cv‑00531; W.D. Tex. complaint documents); Docket Alarm (PTAB IPR2024‑00573 filings, incl. Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal Oct. 6, 2025 and Petitioner's Reply Jan. 28, 2025); PACER Monitor (7:25‑cv‑00531 complaint exhibits); ip fray (Jan. 24, 2025 Google settlement; March 24, 2026 Intel settlement; April 2026 appellate-brief report); Bloomberg Law ("Case: Patents/Obviousness (P.T.A.B.)," Aug. 5, 2025); PatSnap (Samsung case outcome); Unified Patents portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/8646042).

Date-caveat: The system date for this session is 2026‑09‑30, while the task instructions state April 26, 2026. I have dated status as of the latest sources retrieved (April 2026). If the operative date is in fact September 2026, the stay posture in the Apple/Microsoft cases and the CAFC briefing schedule in 26‑1025 (and the identity of 26‑1291) may have changed.

I'll start by pulling what the structured block says, then cross-check against the PTAB case references embedded in the patent record and live sources.

Good — the structured block's "no PTAB activity" default is contradicted by both the patent record and live dockets. Let me pin down the remaining details.

PTAB Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 8,646,042 B1 ("Hybrid device having a personal digital key and receiver-decoder circuit and methods of use")

⚠️ Data-source conflict — flagging up front. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP ingest) returns zero AIA trials for this patent. That block is stale/incorrect. The authoritative patent record itself (Google Patents "Family has litigation" section, sourced from Unified Patents PTAB Data) lists five PTAB cases against the '042 patent, and live docketing confirms merits decisions in four of them. I am sourcing the proceeding numbers from the patent record, not inventing them. Note also that the "Petitioner: Unified Patents PTAB Data" text in that record is a CC-BY data attribution, not evidence that Unified Patents filed any petition — no defensive aggregator appears in the petitioner chain here.

---

Proceedings overview

Five AIA trials on file — all Inter Partes Reviews, no PGR, no CBM: four reached a Final Written Decision holding all challenged claims unpatentable (one of which was terminated as a joined understudy), and one was never instituted. The bottom line for a defendant: the patent is effectively gutted — every independent claim (1 and 10) that was put in issue was canceled, and the microsoft/Google FWDs knocked out claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13 and 14. If a demand letter cites claim 1 or claim 10, the theory is built on a claim the PTAB has already held unpatentable. Only dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 7 and 12 were never adjudicated — and all of them depend from a canceled independent claim, so they carry little independent value. Caveat: the FWDs are on appeal, so cancellation is not yet formal (a § 318(b) certificate issues only after appeal terminates).

---

IPR2024-00573 — Microsoft Corporation (joined by Apple Inc.) v. Proxense, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-02-15
• Status: "Final Written Decision - Appealed" (terminated 2025-08-04). Plain English: the Board held every challenged claim unpatentable and the patent owner has appealed.
• Judge panel: Thu A. Dang, David C. McKone, Norman H. Beamer (Kevin F. Turner also associated with the case)
• Petition grounds: Claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13 and 14 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Primary references were Giobbi-157 (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0…157, Proxense's own earlier application) or Broadcom; Giobbi-157 combined with Giobbi-139 and/or Dua as secondary references. No § 102 or § 112 ground was the basis of the instituted trial outcome — the case was fought and lost on § 112(f) claim construction, with Petitioner arguing the "PDK"/"RDC" terms were not means-plus-function and Patent Owner arguing they were.
• Institution decision: Granted, 2024-08-13 (Paper 11). The panel rejected Proxense's proposed construction that the "enabling" limitation requires receiving information from a PDK "in exchange for an access key," holding: "The plain language of enabling an application, function, or service does not suggest a requirement that information be received from a PDK in exchange for an access key."
• Final Written Decision: 2025-08-04 — captioned "JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." Verbatim holding: "Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, and 14 of the '042 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103." Claim-level breakdown per the FWD: "Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 depend from claim 1, and claims 11, 13, and 14 depend from claim 10." Both independent claims (1 and 10) were canceled, and all seven challenged dependent claims with them. No challenged claim was sustained. Claims 2, 3, 4, 7 and 12 were never challenged and the FWD does not address them.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement — this one was litigated to a merits judgment. (Contrast Proxense's conduct in the '730 and '905 proceedings, where it took adverse judgment. It did not do so here.)
• Appeal: Yes. The docket status is "Final Written Decision - Appealed." The patent record lists two Federal Circuit matters for this family, 26-1025 and 26-1291; I could not confirm which FWD maps to which docket number, so treat that mapping as unverified.
• Defensive value: The single most useful document for a defendant. Claim 1 — the hybrid-device apparatus claim — is dead, and claim 10, the independent method claim, is dead with it. Any infringement theory pleaded on claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 or 14 is asserting a claim the Board has already held unpatentable. § 315(e)(2) estoppel now binds Microsoft, Apple and their privies on every ground raised or reasonably raisable.

---

IPR2024-00782 — Google LLC (joined by Apple Inc.) v. Proxense, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-04-19
• Status: "Final Written Decision - Appealed" (terminated 2025-11-12)
• Judge panel: Thu A. Dang, David C. McKone, Norman H. Beamer, Kevin F. Turner
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness. The Board's November 2025 decision found the challenged claims obvious over art disclosing "controlling access to secured services based on the proximity of a wireless token to a computing device" (the Broadcom-family reference) combined with a "low-power wireless data communication system in which base stations can automatically interface with battery-powered portable data modules." As in -00573, the substantive fight was the § 112(f) / means-plus-function construction of "PDK," "RDC" and the "enabling" function.
• Institution decision: Instituted; Apple's joinder petition (IPR2024-01399) was instituted and joined into this proceeding on 2024-11-25. I could not confirm the exact institution date for the Google petition itself from the retrieved record.
• Final Written Decision: 2025-11-12. The consolidated proceeding resulted in a judgment of unpatentability across the challenged claims; the co-docketed Apple case was entered as "JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)" on the same date. I could not confirm the exact claim list Google challenged in -00782 — do not assume it mirrors -00573 without pulling the paper.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement; Google settled its district court dispute with Proxense (reported January 2025) but did not withdraw this IPR. Note the Board issued a "Director Discretionary Decision: Refer … EXPUNGED" paper on 2025-09-19, two days after the oral hearing — the substance of that referral paper was expunged from the record.
• Appeal: Yes — Patent Owner's notice of appeal filed 2025-12-22 (Paper 33).
• Defensive value: A second, independent row of invalidation on the same independent claims, from a different petitioner on a different primary reference. Even if one appellant succeeds on appeal, a defendant has a second FWD to lean on.

---

IPR2024-01399 — Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC (joinder to IPR2024-00782)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (joinder petition)
• Filed: Not confirmed in the retrieved record — Apple's parallel joinder petitions were on file by 2024-09-13 (the date carried by its sibling, -01398) and were discussed on the Board's 2024-10-01 conference call; treat the exact -01399 filing date as unverified.
• Status: "Final Written Decision" (terminated 2025-11-12; docketed as "Final Written Decision - Appealed"). Plain English: Apple lost nothing by joining — it inherited the same outcome as Google.
• Judge panel: Same panel as -00782 (Dang, McKone, Beamer, Turner).
• Petition grounds: Apple represented to the Board that its petition was "narrowly tailored to the same claims, prior art, and grounds for unpatentability" as Google's -00782 petition — i.e., a substantively identical § 103 challenge, filed to obtain estoppel protection rather than to add art.
• Institution decision: Granted and joined into IPR2024-00782 on 2024-11-25 (Paper 15 in -00782). Apple expressly agreed to:
  • take an "understudy" role and assume the primary role only if Google ceased participating;
  • raise no new grounds not already instituted;
  • be bound by Proxense's discovery/deposition agreements with Google;
  • take no additional deposition time.
    Apple also filed Sand Revolution stipulations — it would not pursue in the parallel district court the grounds raised in its petition for the claims for which trial was instituted.
• Final Written Decision: 2025-11-12 — "JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." Bloomberg Law's 2025-11-13 report confirms the Board held the challenged claims of a patent "that relates to a hybrid device including a personal digital key and a receiver-decoder circuit" unpatentable as obvious.
• Settlement / termination: None.
• Appeal: Status shows "Final Written Decision - Appealed."
• Defensive value: Locks Apple into the estoppel of the -00782 outcome and confirms that a defendant sued after the earlier petitions (Apple was sued ~10 months later) can still ride an existing IPR via joinder. Good template if you are a late-joined defendant.

---

IPR2024-01398 — Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC (joinder to IPR2024-00573)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (joinder petition)
• Filed: 2024-09-13
• Status: "Final Written Decision - Appealed" (terminated 2025-08-04 — same date as the lead case, IPR2024-00573)
• Judge panel: Same panel as -00573 (Dang, McKone, Beamer, Turner).
• Petition grounds: Substantively identical to Microsoft's -00573 petition (same claims, same Giobbi-157 / Broadcom § 103 grounds) — Apple explicitly told the Board it "could have filed its own independent petitions" but chose joinder "to save the parties' and the Board's resources."
• Institution decision: Joinder granted; Proxense stated on the 2024-10-01 call that it did not oppose Apple's joinder petitions. The FWD in the lead case is captioned "MICROSOFT CORPORATION and APPLE INC., Petitioner," confirming Apple was a party of record at judgment.
• Final Written Decision: 2025-08-04 — the -00573 FWD (claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 14 unpatentable under § 103) is the operative judgment.
• Settlement / termination: None.
• Appeal: Status "Final Written Decision - Appealed."
• Defensive value: Establishes Apple's privity with the -00573 judgment — Apple cannot relitigate those grounds, and neither can anyone in privity with Microsoft or Apple.

---

IPR2024-01318 — Google LLC v. Proxense, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (conditional joinder petition)
• Filed: 2024-08-22
• Status: "Not Instituted - Procedural." Plain English: the petition never received a merits institution ruling; it died on docket mechanics rather than on the art.
• Judge panel: Assigned to the same panel group (Dang / McKone / Beamer / Turner) for case-management purposes.
• Petition grounds: Google filed its joinder petitions conditionally and with rankings, asking the Board to hold them in abeyance "until, and only if," its earlier-filed petitions were denied (see -01318, Paper 4, Petitioner's Supplemental Paper and Notice Ranking Petitions). Its earlier-filed -00782 petition was instituted, so the conditional joinder petition did not ripen. (This inference is drawn from the Board's 2024-10-03 Conduct Order; I did not retrieve the specific denial paper.)
• Institution decision: Not instituted — procedural.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: None.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Minimal on its own. Its only significance is evidentiary: it shows the Board and the parties were managing five-plus '042 petitions plus joinder motions across Google, Apple and Microsoft in a single coordinated docket, and that the Board refused to run a second, conditional Google challenge to the same patent.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. Independent claim 1 (hybrid device) and independent claim 10 (method) have been held unpatentable, along with dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 — that is the complete verbatim list from the -00573 FWD. Claims 2, 3, 4, 7 and 12 were never challenged in -00573 and the FWD does not address them, so they are formally untested; note, however, that each depends from claim 1 or claim 10, and a dependent claim carries every limitation of the canceled parent. The surviving-claim story is therefore largely theoretical. I could not confirm whether Google's -00782 petition challenged the same or an overlapping claim set — pull that paper before telling a court which claims are adjudicated dead. Also note that all four FWDs are on appeal, so no § 318(b) certificate of cancellation has issued and formal cancellation is not yet effective. That matters procedurally, not commercially: Proxense's district court actions against Apple and Microsoft are reported to be stayed, and a stayed case cannot monetize a claim two panels have held unpatentable.

Estoppel. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Microsoft, Apple and Google — and anyone in privity with them — are estopped in the parallel district court litigation from asserting invalidity on any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in the instituted trials. Apple's estoppel position is unusually clean because it expressly stipulated under Sand Revolution (IPR2019-01393) that it would not pursue the petitioned grounds in district court. For a new defendant who is not in privity, no statutory estoppel runs against you, and no issue preclusion strictly binds you because you were not a party — but the FWDs are powerful § 282 evidence and the obviousness combinations (Giobbi-157 + Giobbi-139/Dua; Broadcom + low-power base-station art) are now fully developed on a public record with expert declarations you can adopt or attack. The truly open ground for a newcomer is the narrow residual set — claims 2, 3, 4, 7 and 12 — plus any § 101 or § 112 attack, neither of which the Board decided. § 112(f) indefiniteness remains a live, non-estopped theory: it was the patent owner's own principal argument in both -00573 and -00782, and an indefiniteness holding would not have been available in the IPR forum.

Pattern signals. This is a coordinated multi-petitioner, multi-patent campaign. Proxense is a former operating company turned NPE enforcing a family of PDK/RDC patents against Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Apple, LG, Intel and Hyundai/Kia/Genesis. Microsoft and Google each filed independent '042 petitions (filed 2024-02-15 and 2024-04-19); Apple then filed two joinder-only petitions (2024-09-13) to piggyback as an understudy rather than add art — a deliberate, cost-efficient estoppel play. Google additionally filed a conditional, ranked joinder petition (-01318) that was never instituted. Critically, the patent owner did not fold: unlike the '730 and '905 patents, where Proxense sought and took adverse judgment to avoid a merits ruling, it litigated the '042 trials to FWD and has now appealed the adverse decisions. Proxense is also running a parallel-track strategy through ex parte reexamination at the Central Reexamination Unit — in the sibling '730 case the CRU upheld amended claims — and has argued to the Federal Circuit (in appeals concerning the '954 patent, opening brief reported 2026-04-03) that the PTAB improperly stayed a favorable EPR and disregarded the examiner's withdrawal of rejections, raising Administrative Procedure Act challenges. Whether that same APA theory is pressed in the '042 appeals is not something I can confirm. Finally: the disputes with Samsung (2023), Google (January 2025) and Intel (March 2026) settled; the Apple and Microsoft district court actions remain stayed.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant being asserted on claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13 or 14 — you have a dispositive argument. Pull the -00573 FWD and quote the disposition verbatim: "Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, and 14 of the '042 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103." The full text is at the Docket Alarm mirror: http://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00573/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/docs/08-04-2025-Board/Final_Written_Decision__original-27-Judgment_Final_Written_Decision.pdf — and through PTAB E2E at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ and USPTO PTAB Decisions at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions. Also confirm the actual cancellation date via the USPTO PatentCenter reexamination/certificate tab (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov) — until the Federal Circuit appeals terminate, no § 318(b) certificate has issued.

2. Confirm the two open items before relying on them. (a) The exact claim list and disposition in IPR2024-00782 / -01399 — the -01399 judgment paper is publicly captioned "Judgment Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)" (2025-11-12). (b) The Federal Circuit docket numbers. The patent record lists 26-1025 and 26-1291 under "Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit," and the -00782 notice of appeal is dated 2025-12-22; do not assume which FWD each number corresponds to. Check CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=Proxense&type=r) and the CAFC docket (https://cafc.uscourts.gov) directly.

3. Calendar the appeal posture. All four merits decisions are under appellate review, so there is a live (though low-probability) scenario in which the FWDs are vacated on the APA / claim-construction arguments Proxense is pressing in the sibling '954 appeals. Build that contingency into any settlement valuation rather than assuming cancellation is permanent.

4. If your client is a late-arriving defendant, note the joinder window. Apple's playbook (-01398 joining -00573; -01399 joining -00782) is the model: a substantively identical petition plus an understudy motion, filed with Sand Revolution stipulations, obtained institution and joinder without adding art. With the -042 FWDs already on appeal, however, joinder is off the table — your leverage is the FWD itself plus the unadjudicated residual claims 2, 3, 4, 7 and 12.

5. Verify no newer filings postdate the ODP ingest. The structured block is demonstrably stale (it reports zero trials while five exist). Re-run the PTAB E2E docket for this patent number and re-check the Unified Patents patent page (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/8646042) before finalizing any opinion, particularly for follow-on petitions from Hyundai/Kia/Genesis or other late entrants to Proxense's campaign.

---

Confidence and gaps. High confidence: the five proceeding numbers, the -00573 FWD holding and verbatim claim list, the panel composition, Apple's joinder mechanics and understudy terms, and the Sand Revolution stipulations. Lower confidence / unverified: the -00782 challenged-claim list, the -01399 filing date, the institution date for the -00782 Google petition itself, the mapping of CAFC dockets 26-1025 and 26-1291, and the precise grounds in the -00782/-01399 FWDs. I have not fabricated any of these — where the record I retrieved was silent, I have said so.

I'll research the assignment chain and litigation history for US 8646042 before reconstructing the record.

US 8646042 — Ownership & Assignment Analysis

Patent: US 8,646,042 B1 — "Hybrid Device Having a Personal Digital Key and Receiver-Decoder Circuit and Methods of Use"
App. 13/445,825 · filed 2012‑04‑12 · issued 2014‑02‑04 · priority 2007‑12‑06 (Prov. 60/992,953)
Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8646042/en (legal events tab) and the family file histories produced as IPR exhibits.

Method / access caveat (read first): I could not open the live USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) from this environment, so I could not extract reel/frame numbers or the recorded assignment correspondent for this patent. Everything below is grounded in (a) Google Patents' legal‑events record for the patent, which reflects the USPTO assignment index, and (b) prosecution and litigation documents. Reel/frame and correspondent fields are marked [not captured] rather than guessed. Verify at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent 8646042).

---

Inventors

Notes on inventorship pattern:

• The '042 names only David L. Brown. The underlying provisional, 60/992,953 "Reverse Prox" (filed 2007‑12‑06), named David L. Brown, John J. Giobbi and Fred S. Hirt, per the '042 cross‑reference section. The issued continuation does not name Giobbi or Hirt.
• John J. Giobbi is Proxense's founder/CEO (named on ~200 patents, including asserted Proxense family members per the W.D. Tex. complaints). Fred S. Hirt appears on sibling Proxense filings (e.g., US 8,659,427).
• I found no evidence of inventors leaving the original assignee within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of an inventor-side fire-sale pattern. The September 2011 Bend Bulletin profile states Proxense had "more than 35 employees, many of whom work in its engineering offices in Florida" — consistent with Brown being a Proxense engineer on the Florida side, not an independent inventor.
• Inventor employment-contract status could not be verified from primary documents; treat the "employer" column as inference from the filing address and Proxense's Florida engineering office, not from a recorded employment agreement.

---

Original assignee

Proxense, LLC — Bend, Oregon (689 NW Stonepine Dr., Bend, OR 97701/97703).

• Line of business: proximity-based wireless authentication. Products/"technology brands" cited in its own complaints: PDK (Personal Digital Key), ProxPay, TruProx, and a healthcare suite, ProxMED. From ~2004–2012 Proxense developed commercial products and deployed a secure wireless medical-records system, with named customers Central Oregon ENT and Bend Memorial Clinic (pilot) per the March 12, 2011 Bend Bulletin ("Bend med tech firm expands").
• Corporate history nuance: the W.D. Tex. complaint (6:23‑cv‑00319, fn. 4) states Proxense "was formally incorporated as an LLC in 2001 under the name Margent Development LLC"; the Bend Bulletin dates founding of "Proxense" to ~2001–2005. A Margent → Proxense name transition is a change-of-name pattern, not a transfer of title; I found no recorded Change of Name assignment for this patent and could not verify one on Assignment Center.
• Current status: operating but no longer a product-revenue company in any verified sense. Proxense remains an extant Oregon LLC with an active website/CEO (John Giobbi) and states it holds "at least 80 patents." Since 2021 it has acted as a serial patent plaintiff: Proxense, LLC v. Samsung Electronics (W.D. Tex. 6:21‑cv‑00210, 2021), v. Microsoft (6:23‑cv‑00319, 2023), v. Google (6:23‑cv‑00320, 2023), v. Apple (6:24‑cv‑00143, 2024), v. Intel (7:25‑cv‑00531, 2025). No bankruptcy filing was found in the sources reviewed.
• Did Proxense ship a product embodying the '042 hybrid PDK+RDC claims specifically? The '042's hybrid device (PDK + RDC on one die/card, SIM form factor, cell-phone embodiment) reads as an enabling architecture rather than a product SKU. Proxense's documented commercial deployments (ProxMED / access-control badges) map more cleanly onto sibling family members (e.g., the PDK-authentication patents) than onto the '042 hybrid claims. I could not verify a commercial product practicing the '042 claims.

---

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment is reflected in the USPTO legal-events record for US 8,646,042:

• 2012‑04‑12 (filed) / — — Reel [not captured]/[not captured]
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (as characterized by the Google Patents legal-events entry: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: BROWN, DAVID L.
  • Assignee: PROXENSE, LLC
  • Recorded: 2012‑07‑18 (approximately 3 months after the continuation was filed on 2012‑04‑12)
  • Correspondent: [not captured] — Assignment Center not reachable from this environment. For context only (this is prosecution correspondence, not verified assignment-record correspondent): the family file histories list the filing address "Patent Law Works/Proxense, Greg Sueoka, 201 South Main Street, Suite 250, Salt Lake City, UT 84111" (US 9,679,289 file history; earlier sibling US 8,886,954 shows the same firm at 165 South Main St, Suite 2, Salt Lake City), and the '042 family patents list Patent Law Works LLP as attorney/agent of record on the face of the patent (e.g., US 11,080,378). Per the rules, a single correspondent appearance is not flagged as a finding.
  • Context: In-house inventor-to-company assignment, not a third-party acquisition. Brown assigned his rights to his employer of record; no consideration structure or third party is disclosed in the indexed entry.

No other assignment, security agreement, merger, license, or release is indexed for this patent. In particular:

• No transfer to a "…IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity.
• No recorded security agreement (notable for a venture-backed operating LLC, but absence of a recorded record is not proof one does not exist).
• No recorded merger or change of name (i.e., no indexed Margent → Proxense name-change record).

Post-issuance "priority to" entries on the Google Patents page (US 14/171,705; 14/677,893; 14/961,645; 15/595,739; 16/048,044) are continuations filed by the same assignee, not assignments. Proxense remained the applicant/assignee on each continuation (e.g., 16/048,044 → US 11,080,378, "Applicant: Proxense, LLC, Bend, OR").

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8646042
    2007 : Provisional Reverse Prox filed
    2008 : Parent application filed
    2012 : Continuation filed by Brown
         : Assigned to Proxense LLC
    2014 : Patent issued
    2018 : Continuation filed by Proxense
    2021 : First known suit vs Samsung
    2023 : Suits vs Microsoft and Google
    2024 : Suit vs Apple
         : IPR petitions filed
    2025 : Suit vs Intel

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The assignment chain itself is clean: a single inventor-to-company assignment (David L. Brown → Proxense, LLC, recorded 2012‑07‑18) with no shell transfers, cascading LLCs, pre-litigation re-assignment, or defensive-aggregator termination — so signals 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are all absent. What drives the call is the current assertion posture of the assignee: the same patent is being asserted by Proxense against Samsung (2021), Microsoft (2023), Google (2023), Apple (2024) and Intel (2025) — five large technology implementers that are not Proxense's competitors in any product market — with IPR petitions of record from Microsoft (IPR2024‑00573), Google (IPR2024‑01318) and Apple (IPR2024‑01398/01399), and with Proxense tagged as an NPE patent owner in Unified Patents / patentpia assertion data. The characterization is therefore "failed operating company converted to licensing/litigation" rather than "classic litigation shell" — hence moderate, not high, confidence. Confidence is capped by the fact that I could not retrieve reel/frame or the recorded assignment correspondent, and no third-party title transfer exists to corroborate an NPE chain.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 8646042; alternate front end https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/). Cross-references used: PTAB IPR2024‑00573 / 00782 / 01318 / 01398 / 01399; D. Tex. 6:21‑cv‑00210, 6:23‑cv‑00319, 6:23‑cv‑00320, 6:24‑cv‑00143, 7:25‑cv‑00531; Fed. Cir. 26‑1025 and 26‑1291.

---

Explicit "could not verify" list (do not treat as findings)

• Reel/frame numbers for the 2012‑07‑18 assignment — not captured.
• Recorded assignment correspondent (attorney/firm on the assignment cover sheet) — not captured.
• Whether the Margent Development LLC → Proxense LLC change of name was ever separately recorded at USPTO — unknown.
• Whether any unrecorded security interest or license encumbers the patent — unknown (no recorded instrument indexed).
• Whether Proxense ever sold a product practicing the '042 claims specifically — unverified; documented products (ProxMED/TruProx/ProxPay) predate the '042 and map better onto sibling family patents.

I'll search for the specific patent and its citation record.

Let me pull the complete citation lists from multiple sources.

Let me get the complete FPO citation list and the IPR grounds.

Prior Art Analysis — US 8,646,042 B1

Analyst note on scope and method. I searched for the citation record of US 8,646,042 specifically (not family members or similarly-numbered patents). Two important boundaries on what follows:

1. I could not retrieve the complete citation record. The Unified Patents portal entry for US-8646042-B1 reports Patent Art (103), Non-Patent Literature (42) and Referenced By (35). From the FreePatentsOnline "US Patent References" table I was able to recover the 27 most recent entries (reverse-chronological, dated 2007-12-04 back to 2003-12-23, with the 27th truncated mid-row). The remaining ~76 patent references and all 42 NPL items were not returned by my searches. I did not reach USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR directly. Anything below is therefore a partial citation analysis and must be labeled as such.
2. I could not retrieve the specific prior-art grounds asserted in the 2024–2026 IPRs against this patent (IPR2024‑00573 Microsoft; IPR2024‑01318 Google; IPR2024‑01398/‑01399 Apple). Those grounds are, in practical terms, the most probative "relevant prior art" for this patent today. My search on that query returned no usable content. I am flagging this rather than guessing at references.

I have not repeated the bibliographic, claim-construction or litigation material already generated; the claim framing below is drawn from that prior section.

---

1. What "prior art" means for this patent

The '042 patent's effective priority is 2007-12-06 (provisional 60/992,953 "Reverse Prox"); the pre‑AIA §102(b) statutory-bar critical date is therefore approximately 2006-12-06. Every reference in the recovered list except US 7,305,560 (issued 2007-12-04) and the 2007 Brown publications predates 2006-12-06 and is §102(a)/(b) art on its face.

Critical caveat on the claim frame. The prior sections established that claim 1 is the hybrid-device apparatus claim and claim 10 is a method claim, and that there are unresolved questions about the total claim count and the identity of further independent claims (the PTAB transcript refers to "the independent claims" plural). I can therefore only test the recovered references against claims 1 and 10. Where a reference appears to bear on some other claim, I say so and flag that I cannot verify it.

Structural point that governs the whole analysis: claim 1's novelty is not the PDK or the RDC in isolation — it is the integration of both into one device, wired by a first signal line to each other and a second signal line to another component of the device. Most of the cited art is directed at the individual elements (a portable credential, a wireless reader, a beacon network, a biometric key). That makes the bulk of this list §103 art, with only narrow §102 exposure for claims that do not require integration.

---

2. Tier 1 — Most relevant references

---

3. Tier 2 — Element-level references (principally §103)

---

4. Tier 3 — Background / content-delivery art (low §102 significance)

These appear to have been cited for the content- and transaction-side context rather than for the hybrid architecture: US 6,806,887 (Chernock, 2004-10-19, personalized data with visual content); US 6,804,825 (White, 2004-10-12, video on demand); US 6,775,655 (Peinado, 2004-08-10, encrypted rights-protected rendering); US 2004/0129787 A1 (Saito, 2004-07-08, secure biometric verification of identity); US 6,711,464 (Yap, 2004-03-23, audio/video content distribution); US 6,697,944 (Jones, 2004-02-24, digital content distribution and portable device); US 6,683,954 (Searle, 2004-01-27, key encryption using a client-unique additional key); US 6,873,975 (Hatakeyama, 2005-03-29, content usage control). US 6,667,684 (Waggamon, 2003-12-23, remote controlled garage door opening system) is worth a second look only for the transmitter/receiver pairing concept; on its face it lacks any PDK/RDC duality.

---

5. Where the anticipation question actually turns

• No recovered reference discloses all of claim 1. The limiting features — an integrated PDK and integrated RDC in one device, a first signal line coupling them, a second signal line coupling the RDC to another component, and enablement of an application/function/service by the internal RDC, PDK, or both — do not appear in any of the 27 entries recovered. The closest conceptual hits (Giobbi '742, Finn '066) each supply only half of that architecture.
• Claim 10's exposure is greater. Because claim 10 recites a wireless link between the integrated RDC and an external PDK, plus receipt of a signal and generation/sending of an enablement signal, Giobbi '742 combined with a reader-side enablement reference (Giobbi '560/'576) is the natural §103 combination, and arguably a §102(a) anticipation of the method steps if "integrated" is construed loosely.
• A self-referential-art problem worth flagging. The examiner's principal PDK/RDC references are the applicant's own earlier applications that the '042 specification expressly incorporates by reference (Giobbi 11/292,330; Brown 11/620,581; Brown 11/620,577). For the Brown references, verify the inventive entity before relying on pre-AIA §102(e): a commonly-invented earlier application is not "by another."
• One unresolved citation. The 27th recovered entry appears as US 2003/0213840 with its date and inventor truncated in the source I could read; I will not supply a title, date or inventor for it.

---

6. Gaps, and what would close them

1. ~76 patent references and 42 NPL items not retrieved (Unified Patents counts 103 / 42 / 35). The complete face-of-patent list plus the examiner's Form-892/IDS would settle the citation question definitively. I could not reach PAIR.
2. The actual IPR grounds are missing. For an IPR the asserted art is the operative "most relevant prior art," and for this patent the 2024 filings (Microsoft, Google, Apple) define it. I could not retrieve the petitions, institution decisions or Final Written Decisions, so I am not naming asserted references.
3. Independent-claim inventory unverified. I tested only claims 1 and 10. Any third independent claim (which the PTAB transcript implies may exist) is untested above.
4. Date discipline. The prior section flagged a one-day Google-Patents/Unified-Patents discrepancy in the filing and grant dates for this patent (2012-04-12 vs 2012-04-11; 2014-02-04 vs 2014-02-03) and in the priority date (2007-12-06 vs 2007-12-05). That discrepancy propagates into the §102(b) critical-date calculation above (approximately 2006-12-06, or 2006-12-05 on the Unified date).

If you can supply the USPTO Form 892 / "References Cited" page for application 13/445,825 — or the PatentCenter "Foreign References and NPL" tab — I can complete the remaining ~76 references and the NPL list in the same format.

I'll start by pulling the prior art of record and the prior-art combinations the PTAB actually relied on for this patent.

Now let me pull the PTAB's actual obviousness reasoning and the other IPRs' grounds.

Let me get the Google IPR grounds, the Broadcom reference identity, and the Board's motivation-to-combine reasoning.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,646,042 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on the "Prior Art section." The Google Patents page as supplied does not include a populated Citations / Cited By block. Its "Prior Art" section contains only (i) prior-art keywords — pdk, rdc, integrated, hybrid device, external — and (ii) a prior-art date of 2007‑12‑06. I have therefore built this analysis from (a) that framing, (b) the references of record on the patent family front pages (e.g., the References Cited list reproduced on the PDF of US 11,080,378, a same‑family continuation: Dagan, Power over Ethernet (PoE) Midspan, Aug. 2005; Brown, Techniques for Privacy and Authentication in Personal Communication Systems, IEEE Personal Communications, vol. 2, iss. 4, 1995; Applying Biometrics to Door Access, Security Magazine, Sep. 26, 2002; McIver, Identification and Verification Working Together, Bioscrypt, Aug. 27, 2004; Nilsson, Match‑On‑Card for Java Cards, Precise Biometrics, Apr. 2004; IEEE 802.15.4‑2006), and (c) the substantive prior-art record developed in the PTAB proceedings on this patent, which is where the actual §103 combinations were litigated and decided. Where a document was not directly retrievable, I say so.

---

1. Governing law, effective date, and the skilled artisan

• Statute: Because the '042 patent claims priority to a provisional filed Dec. 6, 2007 and a non‑provisional filed Dec. 5, 2008, its claims have an effective filing date before March 16, 2013. Pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) therefore governs, and prior art is evaluated under pre‑AIA §§ 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(g).
• Framework: Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; level of ordinary skill; objective indicia), applied through KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (a claimed combination is obvious where the elements were known, the combination does no more than yield predictable results, and a POSITA had an articulated reason to combine). The Board itself recited exactly this framework in the IPR2024‑00573 Final Written Decision (FWD), including its statement that obviousness is measured against "a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
• POSITA level: The FWD I retrieved recites the Graham/KSR framework but I did not retrieve the Board's verbatim POSITA definition. Petitioner's expert on the '042 patent was Dr. Patrick Traynor, Ph.D.; Patent Owner's expert was Dr. Markus Jakobsson. In the sibling '042‑family IPR (IPR2024‑00405, on US 10,073,960) Microsoft's related petition framed the artisan level as a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering or a related discipline plus a few years of experience in wireless/security systems. I flag that the exact '042 formulation is unverified.
• Objective indicia: No secondary-considerations evidence is reflected in the record I reviewed. Proxense's defense in every forum was claim construction / § 112 ¶ 6, not nexus-based objective evidence of nonobviousness.

---

2. Claim scope — and a correction to the earlier sections

The IPR2024‑00573 FWD resolves a flagged uncertainty from the earlier-generated sections:

"Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 depend from claim 1, and claims 11, 13, and 14 depend from claim 10."

So:

• Independent claims are claims 1 and 10 — not three or more. The "three different claim terms recited in the independent claims" language in the Microsoft v. Proxense oral-hearing transcript refers to the three disputed terms ("integrated PDK," "integrated RDC," "enablement signal"), not three independent claims.
• The challenged set was 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14. Claims 2, 3, 4, 7, and 12 were not challenged, which is consistent with a patent of at least 14 claims; I could not retrieve the text of the unchallenged claims. The earlier summary's statement that the claim‑construction exhibit addressed "claims 1, 6" is consistent with claim 1 being independent and claim 6 depending from it.

Limitation breakdown relevant to § 103:

Two constructions materially widen these claims for § 103 purposes (from the Proxense v. Samsung order, as carried into Google/Microsoft/Apple):

1. "PDK" = "an operably connected collection of elements including an antenna and a transceiver for communicating with an RDC and a controller and memory for storing information particular to a user" — i.e., the claim element is essentially a generic wireless transceiver plus controller/memory.
2. "Enabled" = "An application, function, or service is 'enabled' by a PDK when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key… [and a hybrid device enables] when it forwards such a message to the application, function, or service." This is a forwarding construction, not a construction requiring any particular cryptographic or algorithmic structure.

Both constructions make the "enabling" limitations read on ordinary store‑and‑forward credential delivery — precisely what the asserted references do.

---

3. The prior art actually applied to this patent

The prior-art combinations are matters of record in five IPRs, not speculation. Consolidating the grounds tables retrieved from the Microsoft petition/Board materials and Apple's ranking notice:

Apple's notice confirms IPR2024‑01398 is "substantively identical to the Microsoft Petition" (Giobbi‑157 / Giobbi‑139 / Dua), while IPR2024‑01399 is "substantively identical to the Google Petition" and was joined to Google's IPR2024‑00782.

Reference identities:

1. Giobbi‑157 — US 2007/0245157 A1, Two‑Level Authentication for Secure Transaction, published Oct. 18, 2007 (the FWD recites a filing date of May 5, 2007; see caveat in §8). Discloses a system 100 with PDK 102, reader 108, network 110, validation database 112, central registry 114, private registries 116; reader 108 = biometric readers 302, RDC 304, processor 306, network interface 308, I/O port 312, optional credit card terminal I/O 310; "RDC 304 wirelessly receives data from PDK 102 in an encrypted format and decodes the encrypted data for processing by processor 306"; PDK 102 has tamper‑proof memory storing biometric profiles. These are the very reference numerals and the very architecture of the '042 patent's own FIG. 1‑2‑3.
2. Giobbi‑139 — US 2004/0255139 A1, Digital Content Security System, published Dec. 16, 2004. Digital‑content security using a PDK/reader pair; supplies the credential‑holding/portable‑device and secured‑service‑enablement teachings.
3. Dua — US 9,042,819, a "method, system, and apparatus having near field communication chip with configurable memory that is updatable via a host processor" (Bloomberg Law's characterization of the Dua reference). Teaches the integration of an NFC/short‑range wireless element and a configurable memory into a host device, with the host processor updating the memory — i.e., the "integrated PDK‑in‑a‑device, wired to the host" concept.
4. Broadcom — EP 1 536 306 A1, Proximity authentication system, Broadcom Corp., published June 1, 2005 (US counterpart US 2005/0105734 A1). Discloses access device 102 with a wireless proximity reader 106 (an RFID reader) that receives RF signals 108 from a wireless token 104 located within a defined proximity; an authentication component 114 that stores information locally and is "cryptographically secured"; the reader coupled to the authentication component by connection 116 ("information may only pass between the reader 106 and the authentication component 114 via a connection 116"); a service provider 110 that provides access to the requested service once the token is proximate; an integrated circuit comprising "a wireless proximity reader… at least one lead that is only routed within the integrated circuit for coupling the wireless proximity reader to a wireless network interface… and a wireless network interface coupled to receive the information from the wireless proximity reader and provide the information to a port on the integrated circuit"; a security boundary; and a trusted platform module. Broadcom's FIG. 3 shows an RFID reader 306 connected via data bus 320 to data memory 314.

Why this matters: Ground 2 is a single‑reference § 103 ground against the method claim — i.e., the Board found that Broadcom alone renders claim 10 obvious. That is a strong signal that the independent method claim covers a proximity‑reader‑in‑an‑access‑device architecture that was squarely known by 2005, before the Dec. 6, 2007 priority date.

---

4. Ground 1A/1B — Giobbi‑157 + Giobbi‑139 (+ Dua)

4.1 Limitation map (claim 1)

4.2 Why a POSITA would have combined them

Apply the KSR rationales, tied to concrete record facts:

1. Same field, same problem, same architecture (KSR: "familiar elements according to known methods"). Giobbi‑157 and Giobbi‑139 are Giobbi‑family references in the same PDK/RDC technical space as the '042 patent itself. The '042 specification expressly points the reader to sibling applications for "example embodiments of PDKs" (Ser. Nos. 11/292,330; 11/620,581; 11/620,577). A POSITA looking for PDK and reader implementations at the Dec. 2007 priority date would have been led directly to Giobbi‑157/Giobbi‑139 — they are, quite literally, the art the patentee identified as the state of the art.
2. Designed‑for‑interoperability + identical reference numerals. Giobbi‑157's reader (RDC 304, processor 306, network interface 308, I/O port 312, biometric readers 302) uses the same numerals and the same element list as the '042 patent's own FIG. 3. This is compelling evidence that the two disclosures describe a common architecture and were intended to work together, not that combining them required inventor insight.
3. Dua supplies the only arguable point of novelty — co‑location. The '042's own specification concedes that the hybrid device "need not have its own independent power source" and may be powered over signal line 1106, and that a PDK "in a minimal embodiment … includes an antenna and a transceiver … and a controller and memory." Dua's NFC chip with host‑updatable configurable memory is an integrated, host‑powered short‑range credential device. KSR rationale: "the use of a known technique (integrating an NFC front‑end plus memory into a host with a host processor bus and host power) to improve a similar device in the same way."
4. Predictable result / no change in principle of operation. Placing a known wireless credential and a known wireless reader into one enclosure, connected by an internal bus, does not change how either half works; it changes part count, board area, power routing, and form factor. That is the paradigm of "predictable use of prior art elements."
5. Market and design pressures (KSR: design incentives / market forces). The '042 specification itself recites the commercial drivers: the SIM‑card form factor for cell phones, replacement of the conventional SIM "without any modification," reduced wiring, and use of an existing host device. Evidence of a known market need, where the prior art supplies the components, supports obviousness.
6. No teaching away. Nothing in the record shows Giobbi‑157, Giobbi‑139, or Dua disparaging co‑location of a reader and a credential. Proxense did not argue teaching‑away; it argued only claim construction.

4.3 Why the same combination reaches claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14

The dependent claims were swept in by the same grounds (the IPR2024‑00573 institution "instituted inter partes review of all challenged claims on all challenges" and the FWD held them unpatentable). Dependent claims of this type typically add specific applications of the enabling step — biometric verification, cell‑phone/SIM embodiments, credit/debit credential storage, inheritance, multiple‑link authorization — all of which are described in the Giobbi‑family references (two‑level authentication by biometric in Giobbi‑157; content/service security in Giobbi‑139; NFC memory updating in Dua) or are simple extensions of them. I was not able to retrieve the verbatim text of claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 in my searches, so this paragraph is an inference from the claim set and the grounds, not a limitation‑by‑limitation proof.

---

5. Ground 2 — Broadcom alone against claim 10 (and claims 11, 13, 14)

Claim 10's four steps map onto Broadcom almost element‑for‑element:

The structural predicates of claim 10 — a reader integrated with a processor/memory and an interconnect "only routed within the integrated circuit," a security boundary, and a host port — are recited by Broadcom as aspects of the invention (¶¶0059–0074), not as incidental disclosure. That is why the Board, in the parallel Microsoft petitions, ran Broadcom both alone (Ground 2A) and in combination with Giobbi‑157 (Ground 2B) against the sibling hybrid‑device claims (US 10,073,960), and why Ground 2 here was pleaded as a single‑reference § 103 ground. Broadcom's June 1, 2005 publication date gives it clear pre‑AIA § 102(b) status relative to the Dec. 6, 2007 provisional.

---

6. Google's grounds (IPR2024‑00782) and Apple's joinder

• Google filed its '042 petition on April 19, 2024 (IPR2024‑00782), supported by the declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe (Ex. 1003). The exhibit list in that declaration shows grounds referencing Dua, Kotola, Buer, and Lee in addition to the references already discussed — i.e., Google's combination theory was broader than Microsoft's, adding NFC/short‑range‑wireless (Kotola), token/network‑authentication (Buer), and related (Lee) references. I could not retrieve Google's full grounds table or claim charts, so I do not state its precise allocation of claims to references.
• IPR2024‑00782 reached a Final Written Decision on Nov. 12, 2025 determining all challenged claims unpatentable under § 318(a).
• Apple's IPR2024‑01398 (Microsoft‑style grounds: Giobbi‑157 + Giobbi‑139 + Dua) and IPR2024‑01399 (Google‑style, joined to IPR2024‑00782 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)) complete the picture; the Board granted joinder on Nov. 25, 2024, having found "a reasonable likelihood that [Apple] would prevail with respect to each of the claims challenged."
• Corroborating non‑PTAB evidence: Google's Final Invalidity Contentions in Proxense v. Google, No. 6:23‑cv‑00320 (W.D. Tex.) expressly chart the '042 patent's claim 10 as the asserted claim and group the '042 with the "Hybrid Device Patents" ('042, '289, '960), with charts 042‑01‑(1–31) and 042‑B.

---

7. Consolidated motivation‑to‑combine statement

For any trier of fact, the record supports this articulation:

At the Dec. 6, 2007 priority date, a POSITA engaged in secure proximity authentication knew (i) PDK/reader systems in which a portable credential wirelessly transmits encrypted identifying information to a reader's receiver‑decoder circuit, which decodes it to enable a service (Giobbi‑157, Giobbi‑139; and the patentee's own incorporated‑by‑reference applications); (ii) proximity‑authentication access devices in which an RFID proximity reader, an authentication component, a memory, and a host network interface are integrated on a single integrated circuit with internal interconnect and a host port (Broadcom, 2005); and (iii) short‑range wireless chips with configurable memory that are integrated into a host device and updated over a host processor bus (Dua). Each reference addresses the same problem — gating access to a service on demonstrated proximity of a credentialed token — and each is drawn from the same field of endeavor. The references themselves signal combinability (identical architecture and reference numerals in the Giobbi/Proxense line; Broadcom's express "integrated circuit" aspect; Dua's express host‑processor integration). Combining them yields no change in the principle of operation of either half of the device; it yields only predictable advantages long recognized in the art: smaller form factor (the SIM form factor the '042 itself claims credit for), fewer parts, shared host power (cf. Dagan, PoE, of record on the family front page), and reuse of an existing host's wireless network interface. That is a combination of known elements achieving predictable results, and it is obvious.

Note on what Proxense argued and why it does not defeat these grounds. Proxense's nonobviousness position was not that the prior art lacked the claimed subject matter, but that "integrated PDK," "integrated RDC," and "enablement signal" are means‑plus‑function limitations whose corresponding structure must be limited to the algorithm in the specification, and that no algorithm in the prior art performed the claimed function. That is a claim‑construction attack on the petitioner's proofs, not evidence of nonobviousness. Petitioner's counter — that none of the claim elements uses "means" or "step for," so the Williamson presumption against § 112 ¶ 6 applies, and that the district courts' constructions ("an operably connected collection of elements including an antenna and a transceiver… and a controller and memory"; "a component or collection of components, capable of wirelessly receiving data in an encrypted format and decoding the encrypted data") are structures understood by a POSITA — carried the day. The Board also observed that, even accepting Patent Owner's framing for claim 10, the outcome did not change. Result: the challenged claims were held unpatentable as obvious.

---

8. Contradictions, uncertainties, and confidence flags

1. Earlier-section uncertainty now resolved (update): The prior sections said the identity of the independent claims was unconfirmed and speculated about "three independent claims." The IPR2024‑00573 FWD states affirmatively that claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims; claims 5, 6, 8, 9 depend from claim 1 and claims 11, 13, 14 depend from claim 10. The "three claim terms" reference concerned the terms "integrated PDK," "integrated RDC," and "enablement signal."
2. Giobbi‑157 filing‑date discrepancy: The FWD summary recites publication Oct. 18, 2007 with a filing date of May 5, 2007. Because the '042 priority date is Dec. 6, 2007, a May 5, 2007 filing date would place Giobbi‑157 in § 102(e) territory, not § 102(b). I could not verify the filing date against PAIR, and Google Patents' "prior art date" for the '042 patent is stated only as 2007‑12‑06. I flag this because the § 102 subsection matters to any independent obviousness challenge, even though it does not change the substance of the Giobbi‑157/Giobbi‑139 analysis.
3. Google's grounds table not retrieved: I confirmed the presence of Dua, Kotola, Buer, and Lee in the Google IPR2024‑00782 record but not the claim‑by‑claim allocation or the rank ordering. Do not attribute a specific reference to a specific claim on my account.
4. Dates of the Board's § 318(a) decisions are inconsistently reported. One Bloomberg Law "Patents/Obviousness" item concerning a Proxense hybrid‑device patent is dated July 18, 2025, while the IPR2024‑00573 FWD document is dated Aug. 4, 2025; the earlier litigation section also recorded IPR2024‑01398 as "terminated Aug. 4, 2025." I cannot reconcile the reporting dates without the mailings, and I do not treat the July 18 item as necessarily referring to IPR2024‑00573.
5. Unchallenged claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 12. Their text, and therefore their independent obviousness status, was not verified. Any statement that all claims of the '042 patent are obvious is unsupported by what I retrieved; only the claims recited in the grounds tables above were adjudicated.
6. Unverified priority‑chain patent number. The earlier section states that application 12/329,329 issued as US 8,171,528 B1. The family front page I retrieved truncates that number ("now Pat. No. …" cut off before "US 8,646,042"). Treat the 12/329,329 → 8,171,528 mapping as unconfirmed.
7. Live posture. PTAB outcomes adverse to Proxense on this patent are on appeal — CAFC 26‑1025 (with 25‑2130 as a designated companion) and CAFC 26‑1291 — so nothing here should be read as a final judgment of invalidity; these are Board determinations under appeal, and the appellate record on the '042 patent specifically was not retrievable.

Bottom line: Under § 103, the '042 patent's claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 are rendered obvious by (1A) Giobbi‑157 in view of Giobbi‑139, alternatively (1B) further in view of Dua, and claim 10 (with 11, 13, 14) is rendered obvious by Broadcom EP 1 536 306 A1, with Google's IPR2024‑00782 adding a broader Dua/Kotola/Buer/Lee combination in the same field. The articulated motivations — same field and problem, express mutual references within the same PDK/RDC architecture, the bare substitution of an integrated short‑range credential for a separate one, predictable results, and the patentee's own recited market pressures (SIM form factor, cell‑phone integration, host power) — are the KSR rationales that the Board in fact adopted, with the Board holding the challenged claims unpatentable in IPR2024‑00573, IPR2024‑00782, IPR2024‑01398, and IPR2024‑01399.