US 9396631

I'll verify the record for this specific patent number and check for litigation/docket activity.

Let me pull the actual claim language and check the appellate history, including any recent (2025–2026) docket activity.

Let me confirm the claim text and check for any recent (2025–2026) activity on this patent.

US 9,396,631 B2 — Programmable Security System and Method for Protecting Merchandise

Bottom line up front: I found no 2026 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket for this patent. The only CAFC appeal I can confirm for 9,396,631 is No. 2018-2202, decided July 12, 2019. More importantly, the patent's claims are not live in the ordinary sense — all challenged claims were held unpatentable by the PTAB in 2018 and that holding was affirmed on appeal in 2019.

---

1. Bibliographic data

Source: the full text supplied in your message (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9396631/en) and the corpus corroboration at https://golden.com/wiki/US_Patent_9396631_Programmable_security_system_and_method_for_protecting_merchandise-ZYEPGX4.

Priority chain (from the patent's own Cross Reference section): this is a continuation of 14/825,436 (now US 9,269,247) → 14/529,516 (US 9,135,800) → 14/254,244 (US 8,884,762) → 13/169,968 (abandoned) → 12/770,321 (US 7,969,305) → 11/639,102 (US 7,737,846), which claims benefit of provisional 60/753,908. The 2026-12-14 expiration figure is consistent with a 20-year term measured from the Dec. 14, 2006 non-provisional parent filing.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A programmable security system and method for protecting an item of merchandise includes a programming station, a programmable key and a security system. The programming station generates a security code and communicates the security code to a memory of the programmable key. The programmable key initially communicates the security code to a memory of the security device and subsequently operates the security device upon a matching of the security code in the memory of the security device with the security code in the memory of the programmable key. The programmable key may also transfer power via electrical contacts or inductive transfer from an internal battery to the security device to operate a lock mechanism. The security code may be communicated by wireless infrared (IR) systems, electrical contacts or inductive transfer. A timer inactivates the programmable key and/or the security device after a predetermine period of time. A counter inactivates the programmable key after a predetermined maximum number of activations."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Caveat on sourcing: the document text I retrieved is truncated inside the Background section and does not contain the verbatim claim set. The following is reconstructed only from what the record authoritatively states about the claims — the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2017-00344/-00345 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-00345/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._9396631/docs/05-24-2018-Board/Termination_Decision_Document-36-Final_Written_Decision.pdf and https://mtigs.com/wp-content/uploads/IPR2017-00344-345-Final-Written-Decision.pdf), which expressly identifies independent claims 1 and 22.

• Claim 1 — the system claim (apparatus). Preamble: "A programmable security system for protecting items of merchandise from theft." In plain terms: a programming station containing a logic control circuit that generates/provides a unique security code; a programmable key that stores that code; and a security device that also contains the code and is attachable to an item of merchandise, where the security device has an alarm that triggers when the integrity of the security device is compromised, and the key operates the security device when the code in the device matches the code in the key (i.e., disarm/arm). The PTAB construed "providing" as not being limited to any particular form of communication — communicating a code falls within it (whether IR/RF wireless, electrical contacts, or induction).
• Claim 22 — the method claim. Preamble: "A method for protecting items of merchandise from theft." In plain terms, the same three-party architecture implemented as steps: the programming station supplies a unique security code; the code is stored in / provided to the key; the code is stored at a security device attached to merchandise and having a breach-responsive alarm; and the security device is armed or disarmed upon a matching of the station-generated code with the code stored in the device.

Dependent claims add commercially notable limitations, e.g. wireless communication of the code (per the Board's discussion of claims 26/32 in the parallel briefing), and inactivation of the key after a predetermined time period or a predetermined number of activations (claims 27/33 line of dependency). I cannot give you claim-by-claim verbatim text for every dependent claim; the claims column was not in the retrieved document.

For cross-checking the general claim structure, the European sibling publication EP 3 018 641 A1 (priority US 60/753,861 and US 11/638,814 — note these differ from the '631's 60/753,908 / 11/639,102, so it is a family sibling, not the same application) recites: "a programming station … configured to provide a unique security code; a programmable key … configured to store the unique security code; and a security device … configured to be attached to an item of merchandise … comprising an alarm configured to be actuated in response to the integrity of the security device being compromised, wherein the programmable key is configured to operate the security device upon a matching of the unique security code contained by the security device with the unique security code stored by the programmable key."

4. Post-grant proceedings and validity status (this is the material part of the record)

• IPR2017-00344 and IPR2017-00345, Petitioner Mobile Tech, Inc., Patent Owner InVue. Filed Nov. 29, 2016; instituted May 26, 2017 (-344: claims 1–13, 15–19, 21–29; -345: claims 1–29). The proceedings were consolidated and the Belden anticipation ground was dropped by joint motion.
• Final Written Decision, May 24, 2018: "we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–29 of the '631 patent are unpatentable." Grounds included Rothbaum + Denison (and Rothbaum + Denison + Roatis for certain claims) and Uchida anticipation. See https://insight.rpxcorp.com/ptab/6094-mobile-tech-v-invue-security-products-incorporated-[ipr](/resources/cost-of-inter-partes-review)-of-631 and the FWD PDFs above.
• Appeal — CAFC No. 2018-2202 (InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc.), from PTAB Nos. IPR2017-00344/00345. Panel: Lourie, O'Malley, Wallach. Disposition: nonprecedential per curiam AFFIRMED (Fed. Cir. R. 36), entered July 12, 2019. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4639128](/patent/4639128)/invue-security-products-inc-v-mobile-tech-inc/
• District court activity (as listed on the Google Patents page and the Stanford NPE database): InVue v. Mobile Tech, No. 3:16-cv-00553 (W.D.N.C.), No. 3:17-cv-00075 (N.D. Cal.), and No. 3:17-cv-01356 (D. Or.) — https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9396631
• Related family patents were invalidated in parallel: e.g., IPR2016-00892 (US 8,884,762 — claims 1–27 unpatentable), IPR2016-01241 (US 7,737,846 — affirmed at CAFC No. 2018-1597, Mar. 8, 2019), IPR2016-01915 (US 7,737,844).

Practical read: although Google Patents shows the '631 as "Expired – Fee Related" with a 2026 expiration, the claims are effectively nullified by the affirmed PTAB decision. InVue's continuation practice subsequently produced later members of the same family (e.g., US 11,763,664; US 10,600,313; US 11,017,656) that were prosecuted with different claim scopes.

5. Search limitations / uncertainty I want to flag explicitly

• No 2026 CAFC docket found. My docket-oriented search returned no 2025–2026 Federal Circuit activity for 9,396,631; the appellate history ends with the 2019 Rule 36 affirmance. One of my follow-up queries terminated at a tool step limit, so treat this as "nothing found," not as a certified exhaustive negative.
• I did not retrieve the patent's verbatim claims column. The claim-1/claim-22 overview above is grounded in the PTAB's identification of the independent claims and its quotations, plus EP sibling claim language — not in a direct read of the '631 claim set.
• I could not verify the total claim count of the '631 (only claims 1–29 are confirmed in the IPR record); any claims beyond 29, if they exist, were not adjudicated.
• I deliberately did not attribute claim 25/31 method text from other PTAB petition excerpts to the '631 — those excerpts come from petitions against other family members and would be an auto-correction of identifiers, which your instructions prohibit.

I'll research the known litigation for US patent 9,396,631. Let me start with searches on litigation databases.

Let me get details on the specific case numbers and the appeal.

Let me verify a few specific case identifiers and check for other cases asserting this patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,396,631

Summary

US 9,396,631 ("the '631 patent"), titled "Programmable security system and method for protecting merchandise," is owned by InVue Security Products Inc. and issued July 19, 2016. All identifiable litigation activity around this specific patent is part of the long-running InVue v. Mobile Tech, Inc. campaign (Mobile Tech, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Technologies Inc. d/b/a MTI, formerly Merchandising Technologies Inc.), which spans district court, the PTAB, and the Federal Circuit.

I found no litigation involving the '631 patent outside the InVue/Mobile Tech dispute (e.g., no ITC action and no third-party infringement suits naming this patent). Note that many closely numbered InVue patents appear in the same family litigation, so care is needed not to conflate them.

---

District Court Litigation

Related district-court activity in the same campaign (for context — these assert other patents in the family, not the '631 patent):

• W.D.N.C. 3:15-cv-00610 — the lead consolidated case ('800 and '762 patents; '247 added by amended complaint).
• W.D.N.C. 3:16-cv-00734 — '110 patent.
• W.D.N.C. 3:17-cv-00270 — consolidated into the above.
• D. Or. 3:17-cv-01356 — the transferred consolidated action (listed in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database as InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc.).
• D. Or. 3:19-cv-00407 — InVue's later action asserting the '787 and '954 patents ("Merchandise Security System Including Retractable Alarming Power Cord"), not the '631 patent.

⚠️ Unverified entry: Google Patents' litigation panel also lists "US case filed in California Northern District Court, case 3:17-cv-00075." I was unable to verify that this case actually involves the '631 patent. A Unified Patents caselist search surfaced 3:17-cv-00075 in the N.D. Cal. associated with apparently unrelated parties (Fabletics LLC v. Landmark Technology LLC), suggesting the Google Patents link may be an auto-generated family-level mis-attribution. Treat this entry as unconfirmed.

---

PTAB Proceedings (Inter Partes Review)

Two petitions filed by Mobile Tech, Inc. against the '631 patent, both filed November 29, 2016, both instituted May 26, 2017, and decided by a single, consolidated Final Written Decision on May 24, 2018:

The Board (Judges Justin T. Arbes, Stacey G. White, Daniel J. Galligan; opinion by Galligan) consolidated the two proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) for the Final Written Decision and found by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–29 of the '631 patent are unpatentable. The Board also denied InVue's motions to terminate for alleged failure to identify all real parties-in-interest.

Practical effect: All claims of the '631 patent were invalidated by the PTAB, which likely mooted the district-court assertion of the '631 patent.

---

Federal Circuit Appeals

Important distinction: Other InVue v. Mobile Tech Federal Circuit appeals do not involve the '631 patent:

• 2018-1236, 2018-1238, 2018-1239, 2018-1304 — from IPR2016-00892/-00896/-00898/-00899 (different patents in the family); affirmed per curiam Mar. 8, 2019.
• 2018-1597 — from IPR2016-01241 (the '846 patent); Rule 36 judgment Mar. 8, 2019.
• 2019-1779 — from IPR2017-01900 ('110 patent).

---

Other Noted Litigation References

• First worldwide family litigation (Darts-ip) — Google Patents notes a family-level litigation entry (family 44787811). This is a family-level record, not a case-specific assertion of the '631 patent, and I did not verify a discrete case behind it.
• North Carolina Business Court / trade-secret matter (InVue v. Stein / Scorpion) — This dispute concerns a former employee and Scorpion Security Products, not the '631 patent.
• Scorpion Security Products, Inc. v. InVue Security Products, Inc., N.D.N.Y. 3:2017-cv-01062 (filed Sept. 22, 2017) — I could not confirm that the '631 patent is asserted in this case; it appears to be a separate dispute.

---

Bottom Line

For US 9,396,631 specifically, the known litigation is:

1. InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., W.D.N.C. 3:16-cv-00553 (filed July 19, 2016) — consolidated into 3:15-cv-00610 and transferred to D. Or.
2. Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc., PTAB IPR2017-00344 and IPR2017-00345 (filed Nov. 29, 2016) — claims 1–29 unpatentable (Final Written Decision May 24, 2018).
3. InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., Fed. Cir. 2018-2202 (appeal of the IPRs) — affirmed July 12, 2019.

One caveat on outcomes: I could not retrieve a precise final disposition document for the transferred Oregon district-court action as it pertains to the '631 patent, but given that every claim of the '631 patent was invalidated by the PTAB and that decision was affirmed on appeal, the district-court assertion of the '631 patent is effectively concluded. If you need the exact docket entry showing how the D. Or. case resolved the '631 count, that would require pulling the PACER docket for the transferred case.

If you'd like, I can drill into the PTAB Final Written Decision (which prior-art grounds succeeded and which claims survived institution) or attempt to verify the unconfirmed N.D. Cal. 3:17-cv-00075 entry.

I'll start by verifying the PTAB picture via web search, since the patent's own Google Patents page flagged IPR2017-00344 and IPR2017-00345.

Key correction: the petitioner was Mobile Tech, Inc., not Unified Patents. Now let me pin down the FWD claim-level outcome and the Federal Circuit appeal (18-2202).

Now let me confirm the CAFC appeal 2018-2202 disposition and the FWD's specific grounds/art.

⚠️ Data-source discrepancy — flag before anything else

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block says the USPTO ODP returns no AIA trial proceedings. That is wrong / stale. Two IPRs were filed against US 9,396,631, both went to Final Written Decision, and both resulted in all 29 claims held unpatentable. The Google Patents legal-events feed for this patent also carries the IPR2017-00344 and IPR2017-00345 entries. Treat the ODP "no proceedings" signal here as a data gap, not as evidence of a clean patent.

A second correction worth making explicitly: Google Patents renders the line "Petitioner: 'Unified Patents PTAB Data'…" directly under IPR2017-00344. That text is a data-source attribution to Unified Patents, not the petitioner's identity. The actual petitioner was Mobile Tech, Inc. (d/b/a Mobile Technologies Inc. / MTI), a direct competitor. No Unified Patents IPR on this patent is on record.

---

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trial proceedings — IPR2017-00344 and IPR2017-00345, both Inter Partes Review, both filed 2016-11-29 by Mobile Tech, Inc., both instituted 2017-05-26, consolidated under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d), and both terminating in a single Final Written Decision dated 2018-05-24 holding claims 1–29 unpatentable; Patent Owner InVue appealed and the Federal Circuit affirmed by Rule 36.

Bottom line for a defendant: 0 claims are sustained, 0 claims are untested, 29 of 29 are canceled. The patent's entire claim set was invalidated in a consolidated IPR, that judgment is final and affirmed, and USPTO records show it expired for failure to pay maintenance fees. This patent is not hardenable-defensible; it is a dead letter. If a demand letter cites US 9,396,631, the only live questions are (a) whether the sender is asserting a later-issued continuation in the same family instead, and (b) whether the sender knows the '631 claims are canceled.

---

IPR2017-00344 — Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-11-29 (Petition 65 pages, challenging claims 1–29)
• Status: Final Written Decision — claims 1–29 unpatentable (consolidated with IPR2017-00345; FWD issued 2018-05-24). Appeals exhausted; affirmed.
• Judge panel: Justin T. Arbes, Stacey G. White, Daniel J. Galligan (APJs). Opinion authored by Galligan, APJ. Same panel on both cases.
• Petition grounds: Two petitions were filed the same day and between them covered claims 1–29. The record confirms at least one ground was § 102(b) anticipation over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0159328 A1 (Belden). I could not verify the complete reference-by-reference ground list for each case from the public snippets — the FWD text I could retrieve confirms the outcome and the Belden ground, but I am not going to invent the remaining art combinations. Treat the full ground table as something to pull directly from the FWD PDF (link below) before filing anything.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2017-05-26 — but only partially: institution was granted on claims 1–13, 15–19, and 21–29, i.e. claims 14 and 20 were not instituted in -344. The Board's reasoning is in Paper 7 (Decision on Institution); I could not retrieve its verbatim text and won't paraphrase it.
• Key procedural event — Belden ground withdrawn: In -344 the parties filed a Joint Motion to Limit the Petition (Paper 39) removing the § 102(b) Belden ground. The Board granted it and consolidated the two proceedings under § 315(d) (Paper 40). Net effect: Petitioner's § 102(b) anticipation challenge over Belden was no longer at issue at the FWD stage.
• Motion to terminate — denied: InVue sought discovery on Petitioner's real-party-in-interest identification, filed a motion to terminate in each proceeding, and the Board denied both (‑344 Papers 33/34/37; ‑345 Papers 24/30/32/34). This is a notable loss for the patent owner on the RPI front.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2018-05-24, jointly captioned "Cases IPR2017-00344 and IPR2017-00345, Patent 9,396,631 B2." Verdict at claim-level granularity:

"For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–29 of the '631 patent are unpatentable."

Canceled: claims 1–29 — the entire patent. There is no independent claim and no dependent claim that survived. No claim was held patentable. Because the proceedings were consolidated and -345 instituted on all of claims 1–29, claims 14 and 20 (described above) were nonetheless reached and held unpatentable.

• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The proceedings ran to FWD; the only "termination-style" event was the partial joint motion limiting grounds (Belden), which did not end the case.
• Appeal: Yes. InVue appealed to the Federal Circuit; the docket is 2018-2202, recorded in the Google Patents legal-events feed for this patent. The appeal was resolved by a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment of affirmance — the CourtListener entry for InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc. shows a PER CURIAM (Lourie, O'Malley, Wallach) panel and "AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36," entered 2019-07-12. Caveat, stated plainly: I confirmed the existence and affirmance of the InVue/Mobile Tech Rule 36 judgment arising from the IPR2017-003xx family, but the snippet did not render the docket number "2018-2202" on the face of the opinion. The 2018-2202 ↔ '631 linkage comes from the Google Patents legal-events record. A Rule 36 affirmance is non-precedential and carries no reasoning — do not represent it as a substantive affirmance of any particular claim construction.
• Defensive value: Claims 1–29 of US 9,396,631 are canceled. Any infringement theory built on this patent is built on nothing — the assertion is dead on arrival, and pressing it after the FWD/Affirmance exposes the sender to Rule 11 and § 285 exposure.

---

IPR2017-00345 — Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-11-29 (Petition 63 pages, challenging claims 1–29)
• Status: Final Written Decision — all claims unpatentable (RPX Insight states the disposition as "All Claims Unpatentable"); consolidated with -344.
• Judge panel: Same — Arbes, White, Galligan (Galligan authored).
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1–29 on § 102/§ 103 grounds. Reference list not verified in full from retrievable text — pull from the FWD.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2017-05-26 on all of claims 1–29 (Paper 7, "-345 Dec. on Inst."). This is the case that gave the Board claim coverage over 14 and 20 that -344 lacked.
• Final Written Decision: Same consolidated FWD of 2018-05-24. Claims 1–29 unpatentable. RPX's case-level conclusion: All Claims Unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. InVue's motion to terminate (RPI-based) was denied.
• Appeal: Same as above — 2018-2202, Rule 36 affirmance 2019-07-12.
• Defensive value: Functionally cumulative of -344 (same petitioner, same day, same patent, same panel, same FWD), but it is the independent procedural reason the Board reached claim 14 and claim 20. That matters if anyone tries to argue those two claims escaped review — they did not.

---

Strategic summary

What is canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. Everything is resolved: claims 1–29 CANCELED. Zero claims sustained. Zero claims untested. The consolidated FWD of 2018-05-24 found all 29 claims unpatentable by a preponderance, the Board's judgment was affirmed on appeal (2018-2202, Rule 36, 2019-07-12), and the patent's Google Patents legal status reads "Expired – Fee Related," anticipated expiration 2026-12-14. There is no surviving claim to design around and no claim whose scope a defendant needs to chart.

Estoppel landscape. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Mobile Tech, Inc. — and its real parties in interest and privies — are estopped from raising, in any subsequent district court or ITC proceeding, any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in the two IPRs. Because the IPRs went to FWD on the full claim set, that estoppel is broad as to Mobile Tech specifically. Critically, § 315(e)(2) does not run against a different defendant. For anyone else, the prior art is fully available — but the point is academic, because there is no valid claim left to attack; the practical defense is now § 282 invalidity based on the final PTAB judgment itself, not a fresh IPR. Note also the timing trap: a new IPR petition against an already-canceled claim would be a waste of filing fees.

Pattern signals. This is a competitor-vs-competitor war, not an NPE campaign. InVue (the patent owner, a product company) asserted a family of patents against Mobile Tech — IPR2016-00892, -00895, -00896, -00898, -00899, -01241 and the 2017-003xx cases — in parallel with district court actions including 3:15-cv-00610 (W.D.N.C.), 3:16-cv-00553 (W.D.N.C.), 3:17-cv-00075 (N.D. Cal.), and 3:17-cv-01356 (D. Or.). Mobile Tech was a serial petitioner against many patents in the family, and InVue was a serial appellant (appeals 2018-1236/-1238/-1239/-1304, -1597, -1889/-1898, -2202), including raising the Oil States constitutional challenge in a sibling appeal. InVue lost across the board: the sibling appeals were affirmed too (e.g., 2018-1889/-1898, affirmed 2019-03-08). No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents) is in this chain — the "Unified Patents" string on the Google Patents page is a data-license attribution. The relevant risk signal for a new defendant is family breadth: InVue has later-issued continuations in this lineage, including US 11,017,656; US 11,763,664; and US 12,431,005 (priority 2011-06-27), plus US 10,087,659; US 11,015,373; and US 11,391,070 (priority 2014-11-18). A well-drafted demand letter would cite those, not the '631.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If a demand letter or complaint cites US 9,396,631, quote the disposition back at them. The FWD (Paper 36 in IPR2017-00345; the consolidated decision) states: "we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–29 of the '631 patent are unpatentable." Citation for the decision text: Final Written Decision, IPR2017-00344 & IPR2017-00345, 2018-05-24 (Docket Alarm copy); case-level corroboration at RPX Insight, IPR2017-00345; Federal Circuit affirmance at CourtListener, InVue v. Mobile Tech.
2. Verify the appeal docket yourself before filing. Pull CAFC 2018-2202 from the Federal Circuit docket or PTAB E2E to confirm the FWD-to-appeal linkage on the face of the record. I flagged the source of that mapping as secondary (Google Patents legal events) rather than the opinion itself.
3. No trial-stage milestones to track. Both proceedings are closed: institution 2017-05-26, FWD 2018-05-24 (well inside the § 316(a)(11) one-year deadline), appeal resolved 2019-07-12, mandate issued thereafter. Nothing is pending; there is no oral hearing or FWD due date to calendar.
4. Re-run the family, not the patent. Because the '631 is the severed head of a continuation chain, confirm on PTAB E2E whether the later continuations (US 11,017,656; US 11,763,664; US 12,431,005; US 10,087,659; US 11,015,373; US 11,391,070) have their own PTAB histories. That — not the '631 — is where a live assertion would come from.
5. Do not assume the ODP record is complete. The structured block that authorized this analysis returned zero proceedings for a patent with two FWDs. If you are relying on ODP programmatically for a clearance or freedom-to-operate opinion, add a manual PTAB E2E check and a Google Patents legal-events check as a backstop.

I'll research this patent's ownership chain. Let me start with the assignment records and litigation history.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and check for any post-issuance transfers.

Now let me find the specific recorded assignments, including any post-2025 ASSA ABLOY transfer.

Ownership Analysis — US 9,396,631 B2

Bottom line up front: This patent is not an NPE asset. It is a continuation in a large InVue Security Products family, remains owned by InVue (an operating product company), and was asserted by InVue against a direct competitor (Mobile Tech, Inc.). I was unable to retrieve the specific reel/frame entries from the USPTO Assignment Center in this session — the Assignment Center is a JavaScript application that this workflow could not query directly, and Google Patents' legal-events view for this patent lists no post-filing assignment events. I flag that limitation rather than invent reel/frame numbers; the ownership picture below is grounded in the sources cited.

---

Inventors

Notes:

• The application (Ser. No. 14/931,276) is a continuation of U.S. 14/825,436 → 14/529,516 → 14/254,244 → 13/169,968 → 12/770,321 → 11/639,102 (the Dec. 14, 2006 parent, now US 7,737,846), claiming benefit of provisional 60/753,908 filed 2005-12-23. All were filed as InVue applications; the inventors' obligations to assign arose from employment.
• Unusual-pattern check: not present. There is no evidence of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing. To the contrary, the inventor group is long-tenured at InVue: Fawcett is credited with ~143 InVue patents (PatentLeaderboard) and appears on InVue filings through 2025-01-21 (US 12,205,457); Grant is still listed on InVue grants and on the related continuation US 11,721,198 (2023-08-08). This is the opposite of a fire-sale footprint.
• On the earlier related PCT (WO 2007/075738), the agent of record was Joseph A. Sebolt, Sand & Sebolt, Aegis Tower – Suite 1100, 4940 Munson Street NW, Canton, OH 44718 — i.e., outside counsel, not an in-house/acquisition correspondent type.

Original assignee

InVue Security Products Inc., 15015 Lancaster Highway (later 9201 Baybrook Lane), Charlotte, NC 28277.

• Line of business: design and manufacture of retail merchandise-protection hardware — alarm modules, programmable electronic keys, display stands/sensors, recoilers, cable locks, and EAS accessories. Its own marketing and the ASSA ABLOY release describe "precision-engineered connected asset protection and access control solutions."
• Product embodying the claims: yes. The patent's own commercial subject matter (programming station + programmable key + alarm module/cabinet lock using an SDC) is the InVue programmable-key product line, and the family is actively asserted/enforced rather than merely held.
• Current status: operating. Founded 1986, ~260 employees, 2024 sales of roughly $165–170M with a "strong EBIT margin." Acquired by ASSA ABLOY (announced 2025-01-24), within ASSA ABLOY's Global Solutions business unit. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or wind-down found.
• Note: a share purchase of InVue does not by itself require a recorded patent-level assignment, which is consistent with Google Patents still listing "Current Assignee: InVue Security Products Inc." and no ASSA ABLOY entity.

Assignment timeline

Data limitation (stated plainly): No reel/frame-level assignment records for US 9,396,631 could be verified in this session. Google Patents' legal-events feed for this patent shows only priority/filing/publication/grant events — no recorded assignment transfer. The only InVue assignment record I could surface (USPTO Assignment 48572/419, recorded 2019-03-12, correspondent "InVue Security Products Inc., 9201 Baybrook Lane, Charlotte, NC 28277") belongs to a different InVue application (Ser. No. 16/274,538) and is cited here only as context for how InVue records its assignments — it is not an assignment of the '631 patent and must not be attributed to it.

What is documented about the chain:

• 2005-12-23 — Provisional 60/753,908 filed (priority date). Inventors: Belden, Fawcett, Marsilio, Scott.
  • Conveyance: not separately verified at the reel/frame level (provisional priority document).
  • Assignor: inventors / Assignee: InVue Security Products Inc.
  • Context: original employment-based filing.
• 2006-12-14 — Parent application Ser. No. 11/639,102 filed; issued as US 7,737,846 (InVue assignee of record).
  • Context: original filing / internal family build-out.
• 2015-11-03 — Ser. No. 14/931,276 filed as a further continuation; applicant "InVue Security Products Inc." (per Google Patents legal events).
  • Context: internal continuation, no change of owner.
• 2016-02-25 / 2016-07-19 — Publication US 2016/0055727 A1 and grant of US 9,396,631 B2, assignee InVue Security Products Inc.
  • Context: issuance; no assignment.
• 2016-11-29 / 2016-12-21 — Mobile Tech/MTI-family IPR petitions targeting InVue patents, including IPR2017-00344 and IPR2017-00345 on the '631 patent.
  • Context: competitor challenge, not an ownership event.
• 2017 — InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., 3:17-cv-01356 (D. Or.) and related actions asserting the '631 patent.
  • Context: operating-company assertion against a competitor; assignee/plaintiff are the same entity.
• 2018-05-24 — PTAB Final Written Decision (IPR2017-00344/-345) holding claims 1–29 unpatentable. Appeal noted at the Federal Circuit (Case 18-2202); outcome not verified in this session.
• 2025-01-24 — InVue acquired by ASSA ABLOY (corporate acquisition; no patent-level assignment to an ASSA ABLOY entity retrieved).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9396631
    2005 : Provisional filed by InVue inventors
    2006 : Parent application filed by InVue
    2015 : Continuation filed by InVue
    2016 : Patent issued to InVue
    2016 : Mobile Tech files IPR petitions
    2017 : InVue sues Mobile Tech
    2018 : IPR holds claims unpatentable
    2025 : InVue acquired by ASSA ABLOY

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No recorded movement of the '631 patent from InVue to any "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity. Current assignee of record remains the operating manufacturer InVue (Google Patents "Current Assignee: InVue Security Products Inc."; no assignment event in legal events).
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, Spangenberg entity, etc. appears. Independently, Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies InVue in the "Product company" asserter category for 3:17-cv-01356.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not present. I could not obtain the correspondent of record for this patent's recordings; the only InVue correspondent surfaced was InVue itself acting as correspondent on an unrelated 2019 recording (reel 48572/419), and Sand & Sebolt (Canton, OH) as prosecution agent on the related PCT. No repeat NPE-side recording attorney is evidenced.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No chained LLC-to-LLC assignments; the family has stayed in one corporate owner since 2005.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No transfer precedes the 2017 assertion; the plaintiff was the original assignee from the 2006 parent onward.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding; InVue was acquired as a going concern with ~$165–170M revenue.
7. Privateering — not present. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer. The asserting party is the operating company itself, suing a market competitor (InVue and MTI "compete in the manufacture and sale of retail merchandise security systems").
8. Defensive aggregator — not present. Chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

InVue Security Products Inc. — the original and current assignee of record — is a product manufacturer (~$165–170M 2024 sales, ~260 employees) that itself sued competitor Mobile Tech, Inc. over this patent (3:17-cv-01356, D. Or.), and Stanford's NPE database classifies InVue as a "Product company" asserter. There is no recorded assignment to any IP-holding LLC or known NPE, no cascading transfers, and no pre-litigation transfer; the only ownership-level event is ASSA ABLOY's 2025-01-24 acquisition of InVue as a going concern. Caveats: (a) I could not verify reel/frame-level recording data for this patent, so the inventor-to-InVue assignment is supported by the front-page/PCT records rather than a cited reel/frame; and (b) the patent's assertion value is materially impaired — the PTAB's 2018-05-24 Final Written Decision held claims 1–29 unpatentable (appeal at Fed. Cir. 18-2202, outcome unverified), and Google Patents shows legal status "Expired – Fee Related" with anticipated expiration 2026-12-14.

Verify at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 9396631; the legacy interface is at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

I'll research US Patent 9,396,631 and its cited prior art references.

Let me dig deeper into the specific "References Cited" on the face of US 9,396,631 and the IPR record.

Let me look for the actual front-page "References Cited" list of the '631 patent.

I'll start by gathering the prior-art citations listed on this patent page and the related PTAB proceedings, since those are directly relevant to a § 103 analysis.

Good — I found that claims 1–29 of the ’631 patent were held unpatentable in IPR2017-00344/-00345. Let me pull the specific grounds and references the Board relied on.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,396,631 B2

"Programmable Security System and Method for Protecting Merchandise" (InVue Security Products Inc.)

Analyst memo — 35 U.S.C. § 103 | Prepared April 26, 2026

---

0. Scope note and evidentiary caveats (read first)

Three things I must flag up front, per the strict-identifier rule:

1. The page content I was given does not contain the verbatim claim text. The Google Patents record at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9396631](/patent/US9396631)/en provided in the prompt includes the abstract, the full description, the classification tree, the family/priority data, and the litigation/PTAB entries — but not the numbered claims (1–29) or the "References Cited" table. My limitation-by-limitation mapping below therefore works from the abstract, the specification's own "aspects of the invention" statements, and the independent/dependent claim structure described in the Board's Final Written Decision. Any claim chart offered here should be re-verified against the actual claim text before being relied upon.

2. I could not retrieve the exhibit list from the petitions. I confirmed the existence and outcome of the PTAB proceedings and one of the specific references (Belden), but I could not pull the full § 103 ground-by-ground reference combinations from the Petition or the Final Written Decision. Where I identify a specific reference below, it is grounded in a retrieved source; where I identify an art category rather than a numbered reference, that is because I could not verify a number and I will not invent one.

3. The patent is listed as Expired – Fee Related, with anticipated expiration 2026-12-14 (20 years from the Dec. 14, 2006 filing of ancestor application 11/639,102). The analysis is therefore retrospective/validity-oriented rather than prospective.

---

1. The § 103 framework applied here

Obviousness is a question of law resting on the Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), factual inquiries, with the legal standard refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007):

• Scope and content of the prior art;
• Differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
• Level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
• Motivation to combine/modify, with a reasonable expectation of success;
• Objective indicia of non-obviousness (nexus required).

POSA definition (proposed). A person having ordinary skill in the art here would be someone with a bachelor's degree in electrical/electronic engineering or equivalent, plus 3–5 years of experience in retail theft-deterrent security systems, or a comparable combination. The field is highly practical and integrative — retail anti-theft hardware routinely combines alarm modules, sense loops, EAS, IR/RF wireless links, and electronic locking. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that in such "simple … mechanical/electrical field[s]" the Board may rely on its own reading of the references without extensive expert testimony. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("a reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology"). That principle cuts strongly against the ’631 patent's later-added embodiments.

---

2. The prior-art landscape — and the critical priority-date problem

2.1 The family chain and its legal consequence

Per the face of the patent:

This is the single most important fact in the analysis. The only link in the chain that can introduce new matter is the June 27, 2011 CIP (13/169,968). Claims whose subject matter first appears in the CIP's added disclosure — and the CIP-added material is exactly the material found in FIGS. 18–28A: the "passive" merchandise security device (cabinet lock 207), power transfer from the key via electrical contacts 296A/296B or by inductive coil 396A/396B, the charging station 208/308, and the 6–12 hour time-out — get an effective filing date no earlier than June 27, 2011.

Inference I draw, explicitly flagged as an inference: In IPR2017-00344 the Board instituted on a ground challenging claims 1–29 "as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Belden." Belden (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0159328 A1, published July 12, 2007 — reported by the Board as the publication corresponding to "Authorization control for an anti-theft security system," Belden, Jr.) is § 102(b) art only if the effective filing date post-dates July 12, 2008. That is inconsistent with a Dec. 23, 2005 (or Dec. 14, 2006) effective date, and consistent only with an effective date of June 27, 2011 or later for the challenged claims. In other words, the record strongly implies the challenged claims were not entitled to the 2005 provisional priority. See Final Written Decision, IPR2017-00344/-00345, at 2–3, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-00345/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._9396631/docs/05-24-2018-Board/Termination_Decision_Document-36-Final_Written_Decision.pdf. If that reading is correct, the relevant prior-art window opens much wider than the patentee would want.

(Caveat: I could not verify the assignee of Belden '328 / its issued counterpart US 7,626,500, nor whether '328 is in the same corporate family as the ’631. If it is commonly owned, § 103(c)/AIA § 102(b)(2)(C) may remove it as prior art — this needs checking before relying on it.)

2.2 The same-family companion patents are incorporated by reference

The ’631 specification expressly incorporates two patents and repeatedly relies on them for implementation detail:

• US 7,737,844 B2 ("Programming Station for a Security System for Protecting Merchandise"; Scott, Fawcett, Marsilio; filed 2006-12-14; granted 2010-06-15; App. No. 11/638,814). Its abstract: "A programming apparatus for generating and retaining a security disarm code (SDC) … a controller for generating the SDC, a memory for storing the generated SDC and a wireless communication system for interfacing with a programmable key used for operating a security device attached to an item of merchandise… The SDC is generated initially as a random SDC by the programming apparatus, which SDC is retained in the controller of the apparatus for the life of the programming apparatus." https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b0/5b/70/7462696ec2aa0c/US7737844.pdf
• US 7,737,843 B2 ("Programmable Alarm Module and System for Protecting Merchandise"; filed 2006-12-14) — the alarm module that receives the SDC from the key and permanently stores it.
• US 7,737,845 — also cited in the specification as containing the detailed logic-control circuitry.

Legal significance: Because these share inventors (Scott, Fawcett, Marsilio) and filing dates with the ’631's Dec. 14, 2006 ancestor, they are not § 102(a)/(e) prior art against claims entitled to the Dec. 23, 2005 provisional. But (i) they are prior art against claims entitled only to the June 27, 2011 CIP date, and (ii) more importantly, they are admissions in the ’631 specification about what the inventors themselves had already disclosed and what was conventional — usable as evidence of the state of the art and of the POSA's knowledge. The patentee cannot claim as inventive that which its own specification says "could be … readily known to those skilled in the art."

2.3 Older art appearing in the family's citation network

The family's citation graph surfaced, among others:

• US 5,610,587 — "Theft preventive apparatus having an alarm output device" (pre-2005 → true § 102(b) art).
• US 6,118,367 — "Data carrier system" (pre-2005 → true § 102(b) art).
• US 7,626,500 / US 2007/0144224 A1 — cited on the face of the ’844 patent.

These establish that (a) alarm modules with audible alarms, sense loops and battery-powered logic, and (b) coded data-carrier/key exchange, were each long known by 2005.

2.4 The specification's own admissions

The ’631 description contains several concessions that narrow the inventive contribution:

• Keys for such systems are conventionally "either mechanical, electrical or magnetic."
• A "master key/employee key" dual-key scheme is described as a feature that "may be incorporated" — i.e., an optional add-on the inventors treated as a design choice, not the invention.
• Communication "through electrical contacts," "by induction (electromagnetic, magnetic, electrostatic)," or "wireless (IR, RF)" are all presented as interchangeable equivalents.
• The "passive security device … does not have an internal power source" is presented as a cost-saving design option, not a new physical principle.

Under KSR, treating known alternatives as interchangeable is precisely the fact pattern that supports obviousness.

---

3. The PTAB record — this is not a hypothetical analysis

Both instituted proceedings were consolidated, and the Board issued a Final Written Decision on May 24, 2018 holding that all of claims 1–29 of the ’631 patent are unpatentable. Relevant procedural facts:

Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2017-00344 ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/ptab/6094-mobile-tech-v-invue-security-products-incorporated-[ipr](/resources/cost-of-inter-partes-review)-of-631 ; https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Mobile-Tech-Inc-et-al-v-InVue-Security-Products-Inc-id-72610

Why this matters analytically: The single strongest piece of evidence that the ’631 claims are obvious is that an Article III–reviewable tribunal, on a full record with a patent owner response, a reply, expert testimony and an oral hearing, found every challenged claim obvious. Note the removal of the anticipation ground means the Board did not rest on a single-reference theory; it rested on combinations. (I could not verify the CAFC disposition of 18-2202 and will not speculate.)

---

4. Claim-feature mapping and the combinations

I organize the claims into five feature clusters, mirroring the abstract's structure and the specification's "aspects."

Cluster A — Programming station generates a unique code; wirelessly programs a key; key then programs a security device; device arms/disarms on a code match

Combination A: US 7,737,844 + US 7,737,843 (+ the ’631's own parent, US 7,737,846).

• ’844 supplies: random SDC generation, non-volatile retention of the SDC "for the life of the programming apparatus," a wireless (IR/RF) communication circuit that interfaces with the programmable key, and LED status display.
• ’843 supplies: an alarm module with a controller, SDC memory storing the code permanently, a sense loop, an audible alarm, and arming/disarming on a code match.
• ’846 supplies: the "key programs the device" link, plus the mismatch-causes-alarm feature.

Motivation (KSR ¶¶ 6–7, and KSR "predictable variation"): These are companion components of a single commercial system, expressly cross-referenced and incorporated by reference into one another and into the ’631. Combining a programming station with the alarm module it is designed to program is the only reason the programming station exists. The references are analogous art (same field, indeed same product line), and each element performs exactly the function it was known to perform, with a predictable result. There is no better motivation-to-combine evidence than an express incorporation by reference.

Cluster B — The key must present a valid code; a mismatched code triggers an alarm; the key can be "timed out"; master/employee key hierarchy

Combination B: Combination A + Belden ’328 (US 2007/0159328 A1 / US 7,626,500, "Authorization control for an anti-theft security system").

Belden ’328 is an authorization-control reference in the identical field (anti-theft security systems) addressing predetermined authorization levels for keys. It supplies the "handshake"/authorization-gating concept, the notion of an authorized master key that gates generation of the code, and the notion of rejecting/deactivating an unauthorized key.

Motivation: The problem Belden ’328 addresses — a stolen key being used by an unauthorized person — is verbatim the problem the ’631 states it is solving ("a known problem with such security systems is that the keys may be stolen … and used at the same or another store"). When two references address the same problem in the same field, KSR makes the combination obvious. Note also that the ’631 specification itself concedes the master/employee key hierarchy as an optional feature — under In re O'Farrell / MPEP 2143, that is a classic "substituting a known element for a known purpose with a predictable result" scenario.

Cluster C — Timer inactivates the key (and/or the device) after a predetermined period (96 hours; or 6–12 hours)

Combination C: Combinations A/B + the known art of time-limited / expiring-access credentials.

Time-limited access control is a decades-old, ubiquitous technique — hotel keycards, garage door remotes, rolling-code time-synchronization windows, time-limited pass codes. The POSA would recognize the technique as directly applicable and would have a reasonable expectation of success.

Motivation, drawn from the ’631's own stated rationales (an admission of the objective the POSA would pursue): (i) security — limiting the window in which a stolen key is useful ("cannot be used … after a predetermined period"); (ii) battery conservation — "ensuring that a useable key always has a sufficient amount of internal power"; (iii) operational control — requiring a shift-start refresh.

An independent, independently-cited motivation here is the charging station of the CIP embodiments, which deactivates the key's data/power transfer functions until reprogrammmed. That is essentially a hardware-implemented version of the same time-limited-credential idea, and the ’631 describes it as one of several alternative approaches — again, a design choice among known alternatives.

Cluster D — Activation counter permanently inactivates the key after a maximum number of uses

Combination D: Combinations A/B + conventional counter-limited credentialing.

Counting usages and disabling a token at a maximum is the direct functional analogue of the timer of Cluster C, and the ’631's own rationale is battery-conservation plus anti-theft. Combination of a counter with a code-exchange key is a predictable, two-known-elements arrangement. KSR fits precisely.

Cluster E — Power transfer from the key (galvanic contacts or inductive) to operate a lock mechanism of a "passive" security device

Combination E: Combinations A–D + conventional contactless smart-card / inductive power-transfer art for electronic locks.

The CIP-added embodiments (FIGS. 18–28A) add: a passive cabinet lock with no internal power source; power delivered from the key's battery through ring contacts (296A/296B) with conductive magnets and a pogo pin; or by an inductive coil pair (ferrite core 396A + windings 396B ↔ 308B/308C) with a bridge rectifier producing DC to drive a motor, stepper motor, or solenoid.

Motivation: RFID/contactless-card transponder powering (the reader's field powers the tag) and inductive charging were mature, well-documented technologies long before 2011. The ’631 specification itself presents the magnetic key, the mechanical key, and "power transfer from the key to operate an electronic lock mechanism" as known operator classes. The specification even frames the invention at this level as generic: the key "is useable with any security device or locking device that utilizes power transferred from the key to operate an electronic lock mechanism." Under Belden v. Berk-Tek and KSR, rescuing a conventional power-transfer architecture by listing every conceivable locking device it could drive is not an inventive contribution. The classic KSR "identified, predictable solutions" / "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" rationale applies squarely.

---

5. Motivation-to-combine analysis — the KSR rationales, consolidated

---

6. Anticipated non-obviousness counterarguments and my assessment

a) Priority-date argument. Patentee will argue claim entitlement to Dec. 23, 2005 for all claims. Assessment: Strong as to Cluster A (the original 2005 disclosure arguably supports programming-station/key/alarm-module claims). Weak as to Clusters C-through-E (the CIP-added 6–12 hour time-out, the charging station, the inductive transfer, the passive cabinet lock), which appear only in the June 27, 2011-added disclosure and therefore cannot reach back to 2005. This bifurcation is likely what made the § 102(b) Belden ground viable.

b) Teaching away. I have found no reference that disparages programming stations programming keys, or that disparages time-limited or power-transfer-based operating keys. The ’631's own prior art critique ("those keys can always be used at other retail stores") is a problem statement, not a teaching-away by a reference. Assessment: not available.

c) Unexpected results. The specification asserts no data. "Ensuring the battery retains sufficient charge" is not an unexpected result — it is the expected result of limiting usage. Assessment: not available without evidence of record.

d) Secondary considerations. I have no evidence of commercial success with proven nexus, licensing, copying, or industry praise beyond the litigation itself (which is not objective indicia). Note that InVue's own commercial products embody the references, which undercuts any nexus argument separating the claimed advance from the admittedly-old system architecture. Assessment: no showing located.

e) § 103(c)/AIA § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership carve-outs. Potentially available for ’844/’843/’845 against claims with a 2005/2006 effective date. But this is a prior-art status argument, not an obviousness argument — it does not rebut the obviousness case built on Belden ’328 and the older art.

f) The removed anticipation ground. Patentee may argue that removal of the Belden § 102(b) ground signals weakness. Assessment: It does not. The parties' joint motion to limit the petition is a procedural event (‑344 Paper 39/40), not a merits finding; and the Board found every one of claims 1–29 unpatentable in the resulting FWD.

---

7. Bottom line

The ’631 claims are, in my assessment, obvious under § 103, and this is confirmed rather than merely predicted by the record.

1. The central combination is the patentee's own incorporated-by-reference work plus one authorization-control reference: US 7,737,844 (programming station that generates and retains a random SDC and wirelessly programs a key) + US 7,737,843 (alarm module that permanently stores an SDC from a key and arms/disarms on a match and alarms on a mismatch) + Belden ’328 (authorization control / key-hierarchy). Motivation is express incorporation, same field, same problem, and companion-component design.
2. The timer, counter, and power-transfer limitations are each separately obvious over well-known techniques (time-/usage-limited credentials; galvanic and inductive contactless power transfer), with motivations — anti-theft windowing, battery conservation, cost reduction — stated in the patent's own specification.
3. The decisive fact supporting this conclusion is the Final Written Decision of May 24, 2018 in consolidated IPR2017-00344/-00345, holding claims 1–29 unpatentable, reached on § 103 grounds after the only § 102 ground was voluntarily removed.
4. The recurring vulnerability is the priority chain. The June 27, 2011 CIP is the only new-matter entry point; any claim element traceable to FIGS. 18–28A forfeits the 2005 date and expands the prior-art field accordingly.

Open items requiring verification before this analysis is final

• Verbatim text of claims 1–29 (not present in the supplied page content).
• The exact § 103 reference combinations in the ‑344/‑345 Petitions and FWD (exhibit lists not retrievable from the sources I could reach).
• The assignee and corporate relationship of Belden ’328 / US 7,626,500, to confirm it is disqualified (or not) under § 103(c) / AIA § 102(b)(2)(C).
• The disposition of CAFC No. 18-2202, which I could not verify.
• Whether any objective indicia evidence was presented and rejected in the FWD (the Decision text I retrieved confirms the outcome but I did not obtain the Board's secondary-considerations analysis).