US 9224083

I'll search for current information on this patent number and any related litigation.

Let me check for any CAFC 2026 activity and confirm bibliographic details.

Let me verify the actual claim set and check for any Federal Circuit activity specifically involving this patent.

US 9,224,083 B2 — Summary

Important scoping note first. I searched for the literal number 9,224,083. Be aware there are several similar-looking numbers in this patent family and in the related litigation that are not this patent — in particular U.S. 9,022,286 (a different patent, cited in an Apple IPR exhibit list as "EX1063"), U.S. 9,760,884, U.S. 10,339,520, U.S. 10,628,820, U.S. 10,810,579, U.S. 11,176,538, U.S. 11,328,286, and U.S. 11,620,634. None of those is the subject of this report.

Bibliographic data (per Google Patents and uspto.report)

Priority chain, per the patent's own text: the application is a divisional of Ser. No. 14/217,261 (filed Mar. 17, 2014) and claims benefit of U.S. Provisional No. 61/794,891, filed Mar. 15, 2013, also to David Wyatt. (Note: one Apple IPR exhibit list refers to a provisional as "61/894,891"; I am reporting the number exactly as it appears in the patent's Related Applications section, i.e., 61/794,891, and flagging the discrepancy rather than resolving it.)

Abstract (verbatim from the patent)

"An embodiment includes a credit card device capable of generating a programmed magnetic field of alternating polarity based on a speed of a card swipe, and methods for constructing the device for the purpose of emulating a standard credit card. An apparatus is described to allow said device to emulate behavior of a credit card when used in electronic credit card readers. Additionally methods are described to allow user control of said device for the purpose of authorizing or controlling use of said device in the application of credit, debit and cash transactions, including cryptocurrency and card-to-card transactions. Methods are also described for generating a limited-duration credit card number when performing a transaction for the purpose of creating a limited-use credit card number, which is limited in scope of use to a predetermined number of authorized transactions. Furthermore said device may interact with other similar devices in proximity for the purpose of funds or credit/debit transfers."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Uncertainty flag: I was not able to retrieve the verbatim granted claim set of US 9,224,083 from the sources available to me (the Google Patents full text supplied to me reproduces the abstract, definitions, and description but not the numbered claims, and my searches did not surface a claim listing). The three "aspects" below are stated in the patent's own Summary of the Invention, which in this family is the best available proxy for the independent-claim concepts. Treat the mapping to numbered claims as indicative, not verified.

1. Smart card apparatus that emulates a magnetic stripe (the primary aspect). A thin, credit‑card‑shaped body containing: a memory storing multiple sets of identification data (e.g., several accounts); a processor; a user interface to select one of those identities; a detection unit that determines whether the card is adjacent to a standard magnetic card reader; and an inductor assembly (planar coil) integrated into the card body that, under processor control, generates a magnetic field of alternating polarity encoding the selected identification data and readable by the reader's magnetic read head. Plain language: a powered card that pretends to be an ordinary magstripe card by generating a moving magnetic pattern in the reader's head instead of having a physical stripe — and additionally reads and rewrites itself per swipe.

2. Card‑to‑card transaction device. A credit‑card device with an NFC unit, a touch‑sensor array, a display, a motion/motion‑rate detection array, memory (storing user data and a currency amount), and a processor. The processor initiates a card‑to‑card transaction upon detecting proximity of a first and second card and receiving user input via the touch sensor, with the transaction comprising an exchange of stored currency and user data over NFC. Plain language: two of these cards tapped/swept together can hold a "value transfer" conversation with each other.

3. Method of performing a transaction with a limited‑duration card number. Receiving a user input signal that enables an NFC unit of the card; receiving an indication of a currency amount; generating a limited‑duration credit card number at the card; and transmitting that number to the transaction recipient. Plain language: the card generates a short‑lived, single‑use-ish account number at transaction time and sends it (e.g., over NFC), rather than exposing a permanent account number.

Supporting description worth noting for claim construction: the alternation rate of the magnetic field is driven by a detected swipe/motion rate, detected by any one or combination of (a) a rate‑detection assembly of auxiliary inductor/pickup coils that senses the reader head's metal, (b) an optical sensor array that finds a light minimum corresponding to the protruding read head, and (c) a set of accelerometers. The count of transactions can also be tracked via the swipe/transmission action. These details bear directly on the claim-1 "detection unit" and "responsive to … detected" limitations.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 status

• I found no Federal Circuit (CAFC) docket entry in 2026, and no CAFC appeal at all, specifically naming U.S. 9,224,083. No search result I obtained identified '083 as an appealed patent. I cannot confirm a '083 appeal exists, and I am not asserting one does.
• The extensive CardWare v. Apple / Google / Samsung campaign and the parallel IPRs/PGRs I found assert other family members, not '083. From the documents retrieved, the asserted/đánh challenged patents are U.S. 10,339,520, 10,628,820, 10,810,579, 11,176,538, 11,328,286, and 11,620,634. Relevant proceedings include:
  • CardWare Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., No. 2:22‑cv‑00141‑JRG‑RSP (E.D. Tex.) — and PGR2023‑00012 / PGR2023‑00013 (instituted 2023‑08‑11; later terminated by settlement).
  • CardWare Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:25‑cv‑00446‑ADA (W.D. Tex.) — claim construction order 2025‑08‑29; Apple IPRs include IPR2025‑01145, ‑01146, ‑01148.
  • CardWare Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 7:24‑cv‑00278 (W.D. Tex.) — Google IPRs include IPR2025‑01513 and IPR2025‑01514.
• '083 does appear only as a family member in those papers (e.g., an IPR2025‑01514 exhibit listing "14/680,979 04/07/2015 Patented 9224083"), not as an asserted or challenged patent.

Bottom line / confidence

• High confidence on: number, title, inventor, application number, filing date, issue date, publication, assignees, priority chain, abstract, and that the family has been heavily litigated by CardWare.
• Lower confidence / explicitly flagged: (i) the exact granted claim set and claim numbering of '083 — I could not retrieve the verbatim claims; (ii) the provisional number discrepancy (61/794,891 per the patent vs. a "61/894,891" reference in one IPR exhibit list); and (iii) the absence of any CAFC 2026 activity is a negative finding based on my searches, not proof that none exists — a Lexis/Westlaw or PACER docket query on the specific number would be needed to make that determination authoritatively.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9224083/en ; https://uspto.report/patent/grant/9224083 ; PTAB/PACER documents surfaced via docketalarm.com and ptacts.uspto.gov (CardWare v. Apple, CardWare v. Samsung, CardWare v. Google; IPR2025‑01145/‑01146/‑01148/‑01513/‑01514; PGR2023‑00012/‑00013).

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 9224083. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me search for litigation involving the patent owner, CardWare Inc.

Let me search specifically for the '083 patent in litigation and IPR proceedings.

Let me do a final targeted search to confirm whether the '083 patent itself was ever asserted in litigation.

I'll verify the structured data with web searches before finalizing.

Let me dig specifically into whether any proceeding directly challenges '083 itself.

Let me confirm no proceeding names '083 as the challenged patent, and check the family's litigation/PTAB tracker.

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 9,224,083. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent, and my web searches surface none either — the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. Bottom line for a defendant: the patent's claims are entirely UNTESTED at the PTAB. Every claim of '083 remains presumptively valid, un-narrowed, and un-estopped — there is no IPR-FWD silver bullet here. The good news is the flip side: the same specification and priority family has been hammered at the PTAB, so there is a deep, public prior-art record (and CardWare's own PTAB admissions) you can borrow even though no trial has been run against this specific patent.

Caveat on the structured data (verified)

I ran targeted searches for any proceeding naming '9,224,083' as the challenged patent and found none. What the searches did surface is extensive PTAB activity against later continuations in the same family — which is important context but is not a proceeding on '083 and carries no estoppel or claim-cancellation effect against it:

I am deliberately not assigning proceeding numbers to '083, and I have not stated claim-level outcomes for '083 — no such record exists. The '083 patent appears in these other proceedings only as a family-lineage reference (e.g., Google's Exhibit 1085 in IPR2025-01514 traces application 14/680,979 → US 9,224,083 as a division of 14/217,261). Treat that as priority-chain background, not a challenge.

Why '083 itself has drawn no fire (context, not outcome)

• It has not been asserted. The district-court complaints I could locate — CardWare Inc. v. Samsung (2:22-cv-00141, E.D. Tex.), CardWare Inc. v. Apple Inc. (1:25-cv-00446-ADA, W.D. Tex.), and CardWare Inc. v. Google LLC (7:24-cv-00278-DC-DTG, W.D. Tex.) — assert the later continuations ('520, '820, '579, '538, '286, '634). The § 290 AO-120 filings list those six patents; '083 is not among them. Petitioners IPR the patents that are actually asserted against them, which explains the absence of an '083 proceeding.
• '083 is nonetheless live. Per the patent front matter: priority date 2013-03-15, filed 2015-04-07, granted 2015-12-29, assignee CardWare Inc., status Active, anticipated expiration 2034-03-17. It is a property in being, not a paper tiger — it is simply an unasserted one.

Strategic summary

Claims status. Because no AIA trial has touched '083, no claim is canceled, sustained, or even adjudicated. The entire claim set is UNTESTED. There is no surviving-claims list to give you, because there was never a narrowing. Contrast this with the family's asserted members, where the Board has repeatedly found claims likely unpatentable at institution (Samsung's PGRs on the '286; Samsung's IPRs on the '520 and '820) — but those findings attach to different patents, and the '520 IPRs were terminated before any FWD (the Samsung litigation settled and was dismissed with prejudice on 2023-10-31). No claim-level FWD exists anywhere in this family that I could confirm, so be careful relying on any "claims invalidated" narrative from the siblings.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is patent-specific and petitioner-specific. No IPR/PGR on '083 means no statutory estoppel against anyone with respect to '083. For a defendant now facing '083, that is favorable for you: the full prior-art field is open, unconstrained by any petitioner's earlier grounds. The flip side is that you also have no ready-made invalidity roadmap — you would be the first mover.

Pattern signals. (1) No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears anywhere in this chain; the petitioners are all operating-company defendants (Samsung, Apple, Google) defending themselves. (2) The same patent owner is litigating aggressively across three venues against three large defendants, and has resisted discretionary denial — its PTAB bar (Reichman Jorgensen) is active and sophisticated. (3) Petitioners are repeat filers (Apple with the IPR2025-01145/01146/01148/01151/01152 series; Google with IPR2025-01344/01361/01513/01514), which matters for General Plastic / § 325(d) and Fintiv arguments against any future '083 petition. (4) The family's priority story is contested — Apple contends no asserted claim earns the 2013-03-15 provisional date and that Apple Pay (announced 2014-09-09) is prior art; if that reasoning extends to '083 (which claims 2013-03-15 priority via 14/217,261), your § 102/§ 103 exposure widens. That is an argument available to you, not an adjudicated fact.

One litigation-side admission worth mining. In the Samsung E.D. Tex. case, CardWare argued a "pseudo account identifier" set to expire "after a certain number of transactions or after a certain time period" was "not even static" — and the Board adopted that reasoning. Samsung then weaponized it: see CardWare Inc. v. Samsung, 2:22-cv-00141, Dkt. 150 (Sep. 6, 2023) (objections on construction of "static"). The '083 specification speaks the same language ("limited-duration credit card number"). Prosecution-disclaimer / claim-construction arguments built on CardWare's own PTAB statements are fair game against '083 even without an '083 IPR.

Recommended next steps

• Do not plan around an '083 IPR-FWD — there isn't one. If a demand letter cites '083, you have no "claims already canceled" defense and no free-riding on someone else's win. Budget for a first-instance validity fight.
• Mine the family's PTAB record for art and admissions. The Samsung PGR/IPR institution decisions (PGR2023-00012; PGR2023-00013; IPR2023-00314) and Apple/Google petitions identify overlapping prior art (e.g., Gill, Smith, Kay, Gomez, Law, Collinge) and CardWare's own constructions. Even though '083 has no estoppel effects, the same spec means much of the disclosure-level art carries over. Verify each reference's date against '083's 2013-03-15 priority before relying on it.
• Attack the priority date. Apple's invalidity contentions argue the asserted claims fail to earn the 2013-03-15 provisional benefit. '083 shares that lineage; if you can push its effective date to its 2015-04-07 filing (or later), pre-2015 art like the Apple Pay September 2014 announcement becomes available under § 102. This is your highest-leverage, lowest-cost invalidity theory.
• Watch the pending family proceedings for spillover. IPR2025-01513 and IPR2025-01514 (Google) were filed ~Sep.–Dec. 2025, with institutions pending and FWDs targeted for ~March 2027; Apple's IPR2025-01145/01146 drew institution denials. Adverse claim-construction or § 112 rulings in those cases — especially on "static," "limited-use," and printed-matter issues — will inform how '083's parallel limitations fare.
• Because no '083 proceeding exists, "absence of PTAB activity" is itself the signal. '083 has never been asserted, so no defendant has had a reason to file. If you are the first to be sued on it, expect CardWare to assert it as a fresh, un-narrowed front — and expect the PTAB to be an attractive venue for you, precisely because the claim scope is untested and you'd face no General Plastic or Fintiv baggage tied to a prior '083 petition.

Sources / links. No '083 proceeding to link. For the family-level proceedings referenced above, see the USPTO PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End system (https://e2e.uspto.gov) and the PTAB Decisions page (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions); for the district-court record, CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com) and the CardWare v. Samsung claim-construction order at 2:22-cv-00141, Dkt. 138 (served via https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.[214509](/patent/214509)/gov.uscourts.txed.214509.138.0.pdf). No proceeding number, panel, FWD verdict, or settlement term is stated for US 9,224,083 because none exists.

I'll start by gathering the assignment and entity records from multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the specific assignment recordings, the merger, and the litigation/asserter records.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 9,224,083 B2

Patent: US 9,224,083 B2 — "Multi-functional credit card type portable electronic device"
Inventor: David Wyatt (sole)
Appl. No.: 14/680,979 (divisional of 14/217,261) | Filed: 2015-04-07 | Granted: 2015-12-29
Priority: US provisional 61/794,891, filed 2013-03-15
Sources used: Google Patents legal events (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9224083/en#legalEvents); the family's 37 CFR 3.73(c) chain-of-title statements filed in the Samsung/Apple/Google PTAB proceedings (Docket Alarm / PTACTS exhibit PDFs); Unified Patents patent portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com).

Data limitation (stated up front): I could not directly open the USPTO Assignment Center record for application 14/680,979 in this session. The reel/frame numbers below are taken from (a) the Google Patents legal-events feed for the '083 and its siblings and (b) the sworn 37 CFR 3.73(c) statements that CardWare's own counsel filed in the PTAB proceedings for sibling patents. Those statements are reliable for the family but I could not confirm which reel/frame the '083 itself sits on (the family spans at least two reels — 058889 and 058891). I flag every instance where I am inferring versus citing.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: The concerning pattern (all inventors leaving the original assignee within 12 months of filing, preceding a fire-sale) is not present. There is a single inventor; he appears to have retained control rather than departed. In an October 10, 2023 letter submitted as Exhibit 2019 in Google LLC v. CardWare Inc., IPR2025-01513, a person describing himself as "the inventor of a number of patents related to mobile payment technology" states that the entire portfolio "is assigned to CardWare, Inc. (formerly, Virtual Electric, Inc.)." That is consistent with inventor = principal of the assignee, i.e., an inventor-owned assertion vehicle, not a departing-inventor fire-sale.

Original assignee

• Virtual Electric Inc., San Jose, CA — named as applicant/assignee on the face of US 9,224,083, and on sibling patents (e.g., US 10,628,820 and US 11,328,286 both list "Virtual Electric Inc., San Jose, CA" as applicant).
• Primary line of business: development of a multi-function electronic payment card (magnetic-stripe emulation via a driven planar coil, swipe-rate detection, NFC/RFID, dynamically generated limited-use card numbers). The specification is directed to a hardware card product.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? No evidence found. I found no commercial product, no retail/SEC disclosure, and no product-marketing footprint for Virtual Electric Inc. The founder's own 2023 letter frames the assets as a "patent portfolio" rather than a product line. I could not confirm a shipped device either way — treat "no product" as an absence of evidence, not affirmative proof.
• Current status: Effectively renamed/absorbed. The inventor's letter describes CardWare Inc. as "formerly, Virtual Electric, Inc.," and Google Patents records a Merger event involving "CARDWARE, INC." on 2022-12-08. Treat Virtual Electric as a defunct predecessor of CardWare Inc. as a separate legal entity.

Assignment timeline

Two post-issuance events appear on the '083's Google Patents legal-events feed:

• Executed 2022-02-03 (approx.) / recorded 2022-02-04 — Reel 058889/0693 (reel confirmed for sibling '820; the '083 event is dated 2022-02-04 on Google Patents — batch extends onto Reel 058891/0826)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST; ASSIGNOR: WYATT, DAVID; REEL/FRAME 058889/0693")
  • Assignor: David Wyatt (individually)
  • Assignee: CardWare, Inc. (California)
  • Correspondent: Jose S. Garcia, Reg. No. 43628 — he both signed the 37 CFR 3.73(c) statements (4-8-2022 and 4-14-2022) and appears as "Filer: Jose S. Garcia" on the EFS acknowledgement receipts with Customer Number 43628. Prosecution correspondence address of record: David Wyatt c/o Murabito, Hao & Barnes, 111 North Market Street, Suite 700, San Jose, CA 95113. Recurrence flag: Garcia appears on the recordings for multiple family members (see signal #3).
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter — the family is re-papered directly from the inventor to the operating/monetization entity. Note that the recorded chain of title runs from the inventor, not from Virtual Electric Inc., which is why the 3.73(c) statements cite Wyatt directly as assignor.

• 2022-12-08 — Reel/frame not confirmed (Google Patents lists the event without a reel)

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: CardWare, Inc.
  • Assignee: CardWare, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not confirmed
  • Context: Internal reorg / merger (assignor and assignee share the name "CardWare, Inc." — consistent with folding the Virtual Electric predecessor entity into CardWare).

• Sibling-family corroboration for the reel/frame citations:

  • '820 (US 10,628,820) 3.73(c) statement: "From: DAVID WYATT To: CARDWARE, INC … Reel 058889, Frame 0693" (signed by /Jose S. Garcia, 4-14-2022).
  • '579 (US 10,810,579) 3.73(c) statement: "From: DAVID WYATT To: CARDWARE, INC … Reel 058891, Frame 0826" (signed /Jose S., 4-8-2022).

• No separate recorded assignment from Wyatt → Virtual Electric Inc. was located. The issued patent names Virtual Electric Inc. as assignee, which implies an earlier (pre-issue) inventor assignment that I could not read; the family's current counsel evidently chose to paper the current chain directly from the inventor.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9224083
    2013 : Provisional filed by David Wyatt
    2014 : Parent application filed
    2015 : Patent issued to Virtual Electric Inc
    2022 : Assignment from David Wyatt to CardWare Inc
         : CardWare sues Samsung in ED Texas
         : CardWare merger recorded
    2024 : CardWare sues Google
    2025 : CardWare sues Apple

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present (as classically defined). CardWare is not an anonymous single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC: it is a corporation whose name carries no "IP/Holdings/Licensing/Ventures" suffix, its principals are identifiable (the named inventor), and the 2022 transfer is documented as part of a rename/merger of the original assignee rather than a sale to an unrelated shell. The "no products" tell is (weakly) present, but the registered-agent / shell-LLC tells are not. Evidence: reel 058889/0693; the 2022-12-08 Merger event; CardWare = "formerly Virtual Electric, Inc."

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. CardWare, Inc. does not appear on the named NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). It is an independent, inventor-owned asserter. It does appear in the Unified Patents portal only as the patent owner/assignee record, not as a flagged high-frequency plaintiff.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present (moderate weight). Jose S. Garcia, Reg. No. 43628, is the recording attorney and signer on the Wyatt→CardWare assignments for at least two family members: Reel 058889/0693 (executed/signed 2022-04-14) and Reel 058891/0826 (signed 2022-04-08). The same attorney also handled prosecution correspondence via Murabito, Hao & Barnes (San Jose). This is a genuine recurrence across reel entries, but it is a single owner/one family recurrence — exactly the situation where the prompt's caution applies ("a single appearance is not a finding"). I did not find Garcia on any NPE assertion list. Weight it accordingly.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two events exist (the Feb 2022 assignment and the Dec 2022 merger); there is no chain of successive LLCs within 24 months, and no evidence of multiple assignees sharing a correspondent address.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present at family level; unclear for the '083 itself. The assignment to CardWare (executed ~2022-02-03; recorded 058889/0693 / 058891/0826) precedes the family's first infringement suit, CardWare Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:22-cv-00141 (E.D. Tex., filed 2022-05-11) — roughly three months later. However, the complaints I reviewed assert a portfolio subset: the Samsung complaint lists 10,339,520; 10,628,820; 10,810,579; 11,176,538; 11,328,286, and the Apple matter lists '520, '820, '579, '538, '286, '634 — the '083 is not among them. So the transfer was pre-litigation for the family, but I could not confirm the '083 itself was asserted. The '083 does appear in Wyatt's portfolio letter (Ex. 2019, IPR2025-01513).

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 or asset-sale record for Virtual Electric Inc. or CardWare Inc. was found.

7. Privateering — not present in the classic sense. There is no external operating company funding the assertion on its own behalf against competitors; the asserter is the inventor's own company. This is the inventor-owned monetization model, not privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at CardWare Inc., an active plaintiff. No RPX / AST / LOT / Unified / OIN involvement.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The current assignee of record is CardWare, Inc. (per Google Patents and the family's sworn 37 CFR 3.73(c) statements), a non-practicing patent-holding entity built around the portfolio of a single inventor, David Wyatt. The family was re-papered from Wyatt to CardWare in February 2022 (Reel 058889/0693; Reel 058891/0826) and CardWare filed against Samsung on 2022-05-11 (E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00141) — a pre-suit transfer window of about three months — followed by suits against Google (7:24-cv-00278, W.D. Tex., Nov. 2024) and Apple (7:24-cv-00279 and 1:25-cv-00446, W.D. Tex.) and a wave of Samsung/Apple/Google IPRs and PGRs. Two caveats that a careful reader should carry: (i) this is an inventor-owned NPE, not a third-party shell, so the "shell-entity" and "known-asserter-list" signals are genuinely not present; and (ii) the '083 itself was not located in any complaint — the assertion campaign runs on its siblings ('520, '820, '579, '538, '286, '634), so the pre-litigation-transfer signal applies to the family, not demonstrably to this patent.

Verify: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search Application No. 14/680,979 or Patent No. 9,224,083), mirrored at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html; also https://patents.google.com/patent/US9224083/en#legalEvents.

I'll research US Patent 9224083 and its cited prior art references.

Let me dig into the specific citation data and the IPR proceedings involving this patent.

Let me retrieve the front-page citations from the patent's own record.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,224,083 B2

Note on process: I searched for the specific number 9,224,083 (not similar numbers) and grounded everything below in the retrieved record. Where the record does not support a statement, I say so rather than infer.

1. Confirmed USPTO record for 9,224,083 (not auto-corrected)

Critical-date framework: Because the earliest effective filing date is 2013-03-15 — the day before the AIA first-inventor-to-file provisions took effect — pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 govern. Petitioners in the related PTAB proceedings expressly took this position for the same family (Apple, Petition re U.S. 11,176,538: "Because the '538 Patent claims the benefit of a filing date before March 16, 2013, Petitioner applies the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102, 103… Petitioner applies March 15, 2013 as the priority date" — ptacts.uspto.gov petition 1558056).

Claim set of the '083. I was able to retrieve the claim language reproduced in the SUMMARY only — not the verbatim claim set. From that text, the '083 presents at least three independent aspects:

• Aspect 1 (apparatus / independent claim 1): thin card-shaped body; memory storing a plurality of identification data; processor; user interface for selecting one identification data; magnetic card reader detection unit for determining if the body is adjacent to a standard magnetic card reader; inductor assembly generating a magnetic field of alternating polarity responsive to that detection, encoding the selected data, readable by the reader's magnetic read head.
• Aspect 2 (credit card device): NFC unit; touch sensor array; display; motion rate detection array; memory storing user data and a currency amount; processor — enabling card-to-card transfer.
• Aspect 3 (method): receiving a user input enabling an NFC unit; receiving a currency amount; generating a limited-duration credit card number; transmitting it to a recipient.

⚠️ Flag: I could not verify the exact claim numbers of Aspects 2 and 3, nor the total claim count. Element-level mapping below is therefore anchored to claim 1 (whose language is verbatim in the SUMMARY) and to the two further claimed aspects, and is labeled accordingly.

2. The (56) "References Cited" list — retrieval limitation (stated explicitly)

I was not able to retrieve the face-of-patent (56) citation list for 9,224,083 itself within this session. The pages I could reach returned the specification/definitions rather than the front-page citation table. Accordingly:

• I will not attribute specific patent numbers to the '083 front page as if verified.
• What follows is drawn from (a) the PTAB record for this same patent family, (b) the related district-court litigation, and (c) a petitioner's art-search exhibit that lists the reference universe used against this family.

This is a real gap, and it is the single most important limitation of this section.

3. Most relevant prior art, by tier

Tier 1 — Art affirmatively applied in the PTAB against this family (same critical date)

From Apple's IPR petition against sibling U.S. 11,176,538 (claims 19–30), which shares the 2013-03-15 priority date:

Petitioner also stated: "Every one of Apple's IPRs challenging this family of patents relies on between 1 and 5 references assigned to Visa or MasterCard," and that "not one MasterCard or Visa reference can be found cited in the prosecution history or on the face of" the family patents — i.e., the examiner did not cite the reference art that the leading payment networks had generated. (petition 1558057)

Potentially anticipatory claims of the '083: the Tier-1 set is directed at NFC payment with dynamically generated/limited-use account numbers — i.e., the subject matter of the '083's Aspect 2 (credit-card device with NFC unit) and Aspect 3 (method generating a limited-duration number). Specifically:

• Kalgi (§ 102(a)/(e), published 2013-01-10, i.e. before the 2013-03-15 critical date) — closest single-reference candidate against the Aspect-3 method claim, because it lands both before the critical date and, if its disclosure is as the petitioner characterized, covers NFC/contactless payment with a generated number.
• Varadarajan, Hammad, Smith (all § 102(b) — published more than one year before 2013-03-15) — clean § 102(b) art against any '083 claim reciting NFC-based payment, a display, or a user-authentication input.
• Khan (published 2014-01-16) is after the critical date and therefore available only under § 102(e) as a U.S. application/patent filing.
• Bauer (published 2012-04-05) qualifies under § 102(a) and, if filed by another before the invention, § 102(e).

⚠️ These references were applied to the '538's NFC/limited-use-number claims. Whether they reach the '083's Aspect 1 (magnetic field emulation) claims is not established by the record I retrieved — Aspect 1 is a different technical problem (see Tier 3).

Tier 2 — References identified in the related litigation

From CardWare Inc. v. Samsung Electronics and the related IPRs (involving the '520 and '579 family members):

Potentially anticipatory claims of the '083: Carlson is § 102(b)-eligible (published 2008) and, if it discloses a card device holding a stored account number plus a dynamically generated limited-use number used in place of the issuer account number, it is a candidate against the '083's limited-duration-number claims (Aspect 3 family) and against any claim reciting storage of a limited-use number on a card-shaped device. Gomez (US 9,600,808) is a patent, not a pre-critical-date publication, so its § 102(e) date depends on its filing — not verified here.

Tier 3 — The art universe for the magnetic-emulation aspects (Aspect 1 / claim 1)

The '083's distinguishing subject matter is emulating a magnetic stripe by driving a planar coil to produce an alternating-polarity field at a rate tied to detected swipe speed, triggered by detecting adjacency to a standard magnetic reader. The parents of this art are the dynamic-magnetic-stripe/smart-card devices. A petitioner's search exhibit in the CardWare IPRs lists the following patent numbers as the reference set for this family (Exhibit 1073, IPR2025-01513):

6,631,849 · 6,641,050 · 7,128,274 · 7,202,825 · 7,360,688 · 7,784,692 · 7,793,851 · 7,841,539 · 8,577,813 · 8,639,629 · 8,702,007 · 8,768,838 · 8,856,539 · 9,100,826 · 9,430,765 · 9,530,137 · 9,536,238 · 10,013,693 and pub. nos. 2006/0032908, 2008/0223937, 2010/0260388, 2011/0140841, 2013/0048712, 2013/0124292, 2013/0297509, 2014/0052632, 2014/0279555, 2018/0240106

⚠️ I could not verify the titles, inventors, or dates of these individual numbers in this session, and several of the listed publications post-date the 2015 grant of the '083 — meaning this list is a search palette for the family, not a verified recitation of the '083's face citations. I am therefore not assigning a § 102 ground to any of them individually. Treat them as leads to be pulled by number from the USPTO database, not as confirmed prior art to the '083.

Structural anticipation analysis for claim 1 (element-by-element):

Because § 102 requires every element in a single reference, anticipation of claim 1 hinges on whether any one reference discloses the reader-detection trigger in combination with the coil emulation. Nothing I retrieved confirms such a single reference. If the detection trigger is absent from a given reference, that reference would support § 103 (obviousness) rather than § 102.

For completeness, the '083's own description of the motion-detection alternatives — a rate detection assembly of auxiliary/pickup inductor coils, an optical sensor array detecting a minimum of received light, and accelerometers — is itself an implicit admission that swipe-rate sensing was known; the claimed trigger is reader adjacency.

Tier 4 — Same-family documents (not prior art)

US 9,022,286 (from parent application 14/217,261) and the other CardWare family members share the 2013-03-15 priority. They are § 102(e)/§ 102(b) candidates only if a specific claim of the '083 does not enjoy the 2013-03-15 priority, which the terminal-disclaimer record suggests the family treats as a common chain (AO 120 terminal disclaimer, IPR2023-00196 Ex. 1002). Notably, later family members were terminally disclaimed over 9,224,083 as the reference patent — the '083 is the term-controlling member of the family.

4. Prosecution posture on prior art

The record reflects that the family was granted without meaningful prior-art rejection. For the sibling '538 patent the petitioner stated: "The '538 Patent did not face any prior art rejections during prosecution" (petition 1558056). For the '286 patent the petitioner stated that no MasterCard or Visa reference appears "in the prosecution history or on the face of" the patent. ⚠️ I did not independently verify the '083's own examiner citations, so I cannot state whether the '083 received § 102 rejections.

5. Contradictions / cross-references with the previously generated sections

1. The prior "Litigation summary" section is a stub — it records intended searches ("Let me search…", "Let me do a final targeted search…") but states no findings or conclusion. It therefore does not establish whether the '083 was ever asserted. The present research shows the family is heavily litigated and under IPR, but does not establish that the '083 itself is among the asserted patents. This should be flagged as unresolved rather than treated as settled by the earlier section.
2. New, concrete litigation facts not in the earlier section: Google LLC petitions in IPR2025-01513 and IPR2025-01514 against CardWare (Exhibits 1003, 1073, 1079, 1085 captions reference "14/680,979 04/07/2015 Patented 9224083", i.e. the '083 application is expressly referenced in the Google IPR exhibits); Apple petitions against U.S. 11,176,538 and U.S. 11,328,286; Samsung IPR2023-00196 and PGR2023-00012/00013 (the latter terminated by settlement). The Google Patents page flags "Family has litigation" with family ID 51523147.
3. Priority-date consistency check: the earlier section and this one both rely on the 2013-03-15 priority date; the independent PTAB confirmation of a pre-AIA framework is consistent and not in conflict.
4. Caveat on "magnetic field encodes select identification data" — the '083's abstract recites "a limited-use credit card number… limited in scope of use to a predetermined number of authorized transactions," while Aspect 1 recites encoding "said select identification data." Any anticipation analysis must be run against the issued claim text, not the SUMMARY paraphrase; I could not retrieve the issued text.

6. Bottom line

• The only prior art I can affirmatively tie to this patent family's record, with verified dates and statutory bases, is the Tier-1 set (Kalgi, Khan, Varadarajan, Hammad, Smith, Bauer, Kranzley) plus the litigation references Gomez (US 9,600,808) and Carlson (US 2008/0319905 A1).
• Those references are tailored to the NFC / limited-duration-number claims (the '083's Aspects 2–3). They are not shown to reach claim 1's magnetic-emulation elements.
• For claim 1, the record does not support a § 102 anticipation conclusion. The likely novelty point is the "magnetic card reader detection unit" that triggers coil energization upon detecting adjacency to a standard magnetic reader, distinct from the swipe-rate sensing the '083 itself describes as known.
• What remains unverified and should be pulled directly from USPTO PatentCenter / the printed patent front page: the '083's own (56) U.S. Patent Documents, Foreign Patent Documents, and Non-Patent Citations, and its full issued claim set. Without those two items, a definitive per-reference § 102 mapping for claim 1 cannot be responsibly completed.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent's core technologies before building the obviousness analysis.

Let me dig into specific prior art references relevant to the magnetic-emulation claims and the family's prosecution history.

Let me confirm several specific references I want to rely on for the combination analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,224,083 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Note on the record and one inconsistency to flag first. The system date I am given (2026‑09‑28) conflicts with the "Current Date: April 26, 2026" stated in the task. That does not change the analysis (all material art predates 2013), but I am flagging it rather than silently picking one.

I am also carrying forward the two caveats from the previously generated sections, because they limit how far any § 103 analysis of this patent can be pushed:

1. The verbatim granted claim set of '083 was never retrieved. The three "aspects" in the Summary of the Invention are my working proxy for the independent claims. Everything below is therefore an indicative claim-scope analysis, not a verified claim-by-claim chart. If a verbatim claim set is later obtained, the mapping should be re‑run.
2. The heavy CardWare v. Apple/Google/Samsung litigation and the IPRs/PGRs assert other family members ('520, '579, '538, '634, '820, '286/'286-divisionals, '286 = 11,328,286), not '083. I use Apple's invalidity contentions here only as evidence of what the industry and a skilled searcher treated as prior art in this exact family — not as a contention that anyone has challenged '083.

1. Legal framework and critical date

• Governing statute: pre‑AIA § 103(a). The family traces to provisional 61/794,891, filed March 15, 2013 — the last day before the AIA first‑inventor‑to‑file provisions took effect. Apple's own Director‑level briefing in the parallel IPRs states: "On March 15, 2013—the very last day before the provisions of the America Invents Act ('AIA') took effect—Mr. David Wyatt filed provisional patent No. 61/794,891." (Apple, Petitioners' Opposition to Discretionary Denial, IPR2025‑01513/‑01514). So the analysis is under Graham v. John Deere factors as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (TTO rules; AIA § 3(n) transition). Practically this matters for what qualifies as § 102(a)/(e) art, but the § 103 combination analysis is materially the same under KSR either way.
• KSR rationales I will invoke explicitly: (A) combining known elements each performing its known function; (B) simple substitution of one known element for another; (C) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement; (E) "obvious to try"; (F) design incentives / market forces; (G) explicit teachings, suggestions, or motivations in the references.
• POSITA: a person with a B.S. in electrical/computer engineering (or equivalent) and 2–4 years of experience designing payment cards and/or magnetic‑stripe reader systems, familiar with ISO/IEC 7811 (magnetic stripe), ISO/IEC 14443 / 18092 (contactless/NFC), and the EMV specifications. This is a low‑skill, mature, and highly standardized art — which cuts strongly toward obviousness under KSR's "combination of familiar elements according to known methods."

2. Prior‑art landscape (with verification status)

The Google Patents page lists the prior‑art keywords as credit card; card device; transaction; user; credit — i.e., the disclosed concepts are pitched at a broad, well‑trodden level. I verified the substance of the following references directly from full text retrieved during research; references marked [named only] I saw only in secondary sources and am not relying on for a specific disclosure.

[Named only — not relied on]: U.S. Pub. 2008/0302876 (Mullen '876), 2008/0222047 (Boalt '047), 9,600,808 (Gomez '808), 2007/0208671 (Brown '671), 2010/0127083 (Brown '083), 2012/0150687 (Hart '687), 2010/0088227 (Belament '227), 7,177,848 (Hogan '848), 2007/0114274 (Gibbs '274), 2008/0319905 (Carlson '905), 2013/0124410 (Kay '410), 2010/0082481 (Lin '481), 2006/0122931 (Walker '931), and Apple Pay. These are the primary/secondary references in Apple's Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, CardWare, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 1:25‑cv‑00446‑ADA (Exs. 820‑1 to 820‑17, 820‑103). I list them because they show that the same technical ground was mapped by a sophisticated defendant in the same patent family; I do not attribute specific disclosures to them.

Note on the '083 description's own admissions. The patent's Background concedes the prior existence of (a) magstripe cards and their ubiquity, (b) chip cards with cryptographic microprocessors and built‑in dynamic data, and (c) RFID/contactless cards — and even concedes that chip/RFID cards are limited mainly because "they are incompatible with existing credit card infrastructure." That is an express statement of the market/design incentive (KSR rationale F) that motivates the very combination the claims embody.

3. Ground 1 — Independent claim 1 (magnetically‑emulating multi‑account card)

Combination: Dynamics/Mullen ("Cards with Serial Magnetic Emulators" family — e.g., U.S. 9,384,438; 10,032,100; U.S. 2009/0159690) in view of U.S. 8,651,386 and U.S. 2011/0272473 (or WO 2009/082760), optionally with U.S. 2015/0041534.

Element‑by‑element (indicative, mapped to the Summary's first aspect):

Motivation / KSR rationale. Combination (A)+(C): '9690 expressly motivates reader detection with an anti‑skimming purpose — detecting an illegitimate read head so the card does not broadcast data to it — and 8,651,386 supplies a specific, known mechanism (impedance sensing) for doing so; a POSITA seeking to add "generate only when adjacent to a real reader" to a serial‑emulator card would simply adopt the impedance‑sensing technique 8,651,386 already teaches for the same hardware. There is also a strong (F) incentive: the '083 itself notes that the value of an electronic card lies in compatibility with existing magstripe infrastructure, so reusing the emulator coil both to transmit and to sense the reader is an efficiency a POSITA would pursue.

Dependent‑claim concepts (swipe‑rate adaptation, motion detection): '273 teaches that a magnetic‑stripe reader determines swipe rate (e.g., from leading zero bits) and that emulator drive pulses map to F2F‑encoded bits; WO '760 and Mullen/'438 teach serial emulation at high frequency from a single coil. Adding accelerometer/optical/coil‑array rate detection to those is a routine (B)/(D) substitution of one known motion‑sensing element for another, with predictable results (data clocked at the reader's rate).

4. Ground 2 — Independent claim 2 (card‑to‑card transaction: NFC + touch sensor + display + motion‑rate array + stored currency)

Combination: Bona (U.S. Pub. 2011/0140841) in view of Collinge (U.S. Pub. 2013/0262317) in view of Flitcroft/Orbis person‑to‑person value transfer (U.S. Pub. 2009/0012897; U.S. 7,433,845) in view of Dynamics display/button card art ('9690, '273; 9,684,861).

• NFC unit + card body: Bona teaches an NFC‑enabled companion payment card; Collinge teaches a device that generates and transmits payment credentials over NFC.
• Priming / user input via touch sensor: Collinge's "priming operation" (e.g., entering a PIN) teaches enabling a transaction by user input; POSITA motivation to implement as an on‑card touch pad is ordinary design choice, and Dynamics cards with buttons/'273 cards with interfaces supply card‑resident input.
• Display / motion‑rate detection array: Dynamics 9,684,861 and '273 teach on‑card displays and interfaces; motion/rate sensing is the same art as Ground 1.
• Stored currency amount + exchange over NFC: Flitcroft's person‑to‑person systems teach storing value/account data and transferring it between parties; the stored‑value "electronic purse" concept is decades old in the smart‑card art.

Motivation. Combination (A)/(C): each element performs a known function (NFC radio, touch input, display, value store); peer‑to‑peer NFC (ISO/IEC 18092) is a standardized mode, so using it for a card‑to‑card transfer between two of the same devices is the paradigmatic "known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement." Expectation of success is high precisely because all the building blocks are standards‑based.

5. Ground 3 — Independent claim 3 (method of performing a transaction with a limited‑duration number)

Combination: Orbis/Flitcroft (U.S. 6,636,833 / 7,131,xxx / EP 1 115 095 — and U.S. 7,933,835) and Franklin (U.S. 5,883,810) in view of Collinge (2013/0262317) / Bona (2011/0140841) and the EMV Guide, optionally U.S. 2013/0204781 and Dynamics WO '760.

Motivation. (A)+(F): The '083's own specification frames the invention around the acknowledged problem of "compromised numbers" fraud and skimming — a problem the Orbis/Flitcroft and Franklin references address with the identical solution (single‑use, time‑limited, transaction‑time‑generated account numbers). Orbis additionally teaches the very "proper conditions" concept the '083 recites ("the credit card device will only successfully generate a limited‑duration credit card number if the proper conditions… are determined to be present"), via CPN business rules that decline issuance when authorization is exceeded. Replacing a server‑issued limited‑use number with an on‑card‑generated one (as U.S. 2013/0204781 and EMV already do) is a simple substitution of one known element for another (rationale B) yielding the predictable benefit of offline, tap‑and‑go operation.

One important counter‑point to preserve for balance. The '083 (like its family members) recites a very broad genus of inputs for generating the dynamic number ("user private information, bank information, the facility, the time of day," etc.). Apple's own contentions map these same "laundry‑list" limitations to Orbis/EMV art for the sibling patents ('634, '820). That breadth is, if anything, a liability under § 103: a claim that lists essentially every known transaction input is easier to meet with a combination of references that collectively disclose those inputs.

6. Cross‑cutting motivations (why a POSITA would combine)

1. The references themselves point to the same problem. Both the '083 Background and the Flitcroft/Orbis/Dynamics references are motivated by card‑present skimming and account‑compromise fraud. Under KSR, a "problem in the art" acknowledged by the patent and addressed by the art supplies the motivation.
2. "Existing reader infrastructure" is the stated design constraint. The '083 admits chip/RFID cards are disfavored because they are "incompatible with existing credit card infrastructure." A POSITA therefore has a specific, articulated reason to bolt magstripe emulation onto a dynamic‑number card — exactly Grounds 1 and 3.
3. Anti‑skimming gating is taught, not invented. Reader detection before transmitting is expressly disclosed (Dynamics '9690; 8,651,386), so the "responsive to detection" limitation is a known technique with a known benefit.
4. Standards. ISO/IEC 7811 (F2F encoding, bit density), ISO/IEC 18092 (NFC P2P), and EMV (dynamic per‑transaction data) eliminate any "unpredictable result" argument for the informational‑field and NFC elements.

7. Anticipated rebuttals (and how they fare)

• "No motivation to combine." Weak, given the explicit anti‑fraud and infrastructure‑compatibility motivations above and the KSR "familiar elements" command.
• "The specific combination is physically incompatible." Not credible where the same coil is used for emulation and reader sensing in the cited art (8,651,386) and for NFC antenna sharing in the '083 itself.
• Secondary considerations. I found no affirmative evidence of nexus‑qualified secondary indicia (long‑felt need, licensing due to the merits, unexpected results) for '083 specifically. The CardWare licensing campaign and the family's litigation track record are commercial facts, not proof of non‑obviousness, and — per the earlier sections — that campaign did not assert '083. Absence of a finding is not a finding of absence; a full objective‑indicia search remains outstanding.

8. Conclusion

On the record available, each of the three independent aspects of U.S. 9,224,083 appears vulnerable to a pre‑AIA § 103(a) obviousness attack:

• Aspect 1 is met by the Dynamics serial‑magnetic‑emulator family (9,384,438 / 10,032,100 / 2009/0159690 / WO 2009/082760 / 2011/0272473) combined with reader‑head detection art (8,651,386; '9690).
• Aspect 2 is met by Bona + Collinge + Flitcroft person‑to‑person value transfer + Dynamics card UI art.
• Aspect 3 is met by Orbis/Flitcroft + Franklin, combined with Collinge/Bona and EMV/2013‑0204781 for on‑card generation and NFC transmission.

In every case the motivation flows from a single, articulated industry problem (skimming / compromised account numbers) plus the patent's own admitted driver (keeping compatibility with the installed magstripe base).

Confidence: Moderate‑to‑high that the claims are obvious as I have reconstructed them; low certainty on the exact granted claim language, so this should be treated as a framework to be validated against the verbatim claim set (and re‑scored if the claims include narrower limitations, e.g., a specific swipe‑rate‑feedback architecture or the "region substantially encompassing the reader" geometry, that the cited art does not reach).

Open items / where I could not verify: the exact granted claims of '083 (previously flagged); the contents of the [named‑only] Apple references (Mullen '876, Boalt '047, Gomez '808, Hogan '848, Walker '931, Lin '481, etc.); and the provisional‑number discrepancy (61/794,891 as printed in the patent vs. "61/894,891" in one Apple exhibit list). I also did not complete a dedicated secondary‑considerations search — a data point that could cut against this analysis.

Sources

• U.S. 9,224,083 B2 full text — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9224083](/patent/US9224083)/en
• U.S. 9,384,438 B2 (Cards with Serial Magnetic Emulators) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/62/a2/9d/f187227562ee10/[US9384438](/patent/US9384438).pdf
• U.S. 10,032,100 B2 / 11,055,600 B2 (multifunction magnetic emulators; serial emulators) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/13/f7/96/10cd216c5db9b9/[US11055600](/patent/US11055600).pdf ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2020-00502/…
• U.S. 2011/0272473 A1 (Dynamics, enhanced magnetic emulators / F2F / swipe rate) — https://trade.patenthub.cn/cpc/patent-[176606](/patent/176606)-US2011272467A1-…html
• U.S. 2009/0159690 A1 (read‑head detector) — https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0159690.html
• WO 2009/082760 A1 / AU2008340226A1 (dynamic number; magnetic emulator) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f6/29/6b/157a7a7422c465/AU2008340226A1.pdf
• U.S. 2011/0272471 A1 (Brown, dynamic credit card w/ encoder) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110272471A1
• U.S. 8,651,386 B2 (coil‑impedance read‑head detection) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/bd/ff/24/9f5a9500225b0e/[US8651386](/patent/US8651386).pdf
• U.S. 2015/0041534 A1 (magnetic‑field transponder readable by POS head) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c5/1a/81/84d851e819557c/US20150041534A1.pdf
• U.S. 2013/0204781 A1 (on‑card virtual account number generator) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/01/fd/cd/9fc3042d9dd20a/US20130204781A1.pdf
• U.S. 7,933,835 B2 (one‑time‑use credit card numbers; time‑limited validity) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b2/16/b5/0ebc4c3549b76b/[US7933835](/patent/US7933835).pdf
• Orbis Patents / Flitcroft family (limited‑use numbers; CPNs) — https://patents.justia.com/assignee/orbis-patents-ltd ; https://patents.justia.com/inventor/daniel-ian-flitcroft ; EP 1 115 095 A3 — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e1/48/05/943cc3a66e560c/EP1115095A3.pdf
• Apple's Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (CardWare v. Apple, 1:25‑cv‑00446‑ADA) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558055](/patent/1558055)/…
• Apple, Petitioners' Opposition to Discretionary Denial, IPR2025‑01513/‑01514 (priority/AIA date; prov. 61/794,891) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558054](/patent/1558054)/… ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01514/…
• IPR summaries (Collinge/Bona/Smith/EMV mappings) — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01151/doc/1011 ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01152/doc/summary/1