US 9405898

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

Let me check for Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 activity specifically involving this patent.

US Patent 9,405,898 — Summary

Grounding note: I have the full text of this patent (fetched from Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9405898](/patent/US9405898)/en), which I treat as authoritative for bibliographic data and claims. Litigation/docket details below come from the search results cited. I did not find a CAFC 2026 docket specifically for the '898 patent (see the litigation caveat below).

Bibliographic data (from the patent text)

Minor identifier discrepancy to flag: Google Patents lists the priority date as 2013-05-10, while a Unified Patents portal entry listed it as 2013-05-09. I have not auto-corrected either; per the authoritative patent text, the provisional applications were filed May 10, 2013 and August 9, 2013, so 2013-05-10 is the better-supported date.

Abstract (verbatim)

"The disclosure includes a system and method in which one or more virtual resources are presented to a secure element; and the one or more virtual resources are mapped to available resources based on a model architecture for the secure element in order to provide hardware abstraction, the available physical resources varying based on the model architecture and an associated host device, the virtual resources allowing consistent interaction with the virtual resources regardless of variation in the physical resources available and their location. The hardware abstraction increases the versatility of the secure element and may contribute to the secure element's functionality. The secure element providing functionality to replace most items carried in an individual's pockets, e.g., logical and physical keys, a thumb drive, identification, credit and debit cards, etc."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 (system claim). A system has two parts: (a) a secure element (a compact, portable device — the "digital pocket") that communicates wirelessly and directly with a paired/"associated" host device, and that contains a memory storing data plus a wireless storage module run by the secure element's processor; and (b) the associated host device, which runs a link module. The link module cooperates with the secure element's wireless storage module to wirelessly mount at least a portion of the secure element's memory as a storage drive of the host device. In plain terms: the secure element works like a thumb drive in your pocket — its storage is mounted as a drive on the host computer, but the connection is wireless rather than a physical USB plug.

Claim 8 (method claim). A method with two steps: (1) presenting one or more "virtual resources" to the secure element; and (2) mapping those virtual resources to available physical resources based on a "model architecture" for the secure element, to provide hardware abstraction. The available physical resources vary depending on the model architecture and the associated host device, but because the resources are virtualized, software can interact with them consistently regardless of which physical resources exist or where they are located. In plain terms: the secure element always "sees" the same set of abstract components (e.g., a comms interface, a biometric sensor), and an abstraction layer figures out whether each one is fulfilled by hardware on the secure element itself, on the host device, or elsewhere — so the same code works across different hardware configurations.

The remaining claims (2–7, 9–19) are dependents that add, respectively: a biometric sensor and owner-authentication module, with mounting/access gated on successful biometric authentication and with the sensor either local or host-provided as a "virtual" sensor; the mounted drive appearing to the host as a physically connected storage drive; user-configurable proximity/duration triggers; the three model architectures (stand-alone, proxy, virtual) and the proxy case of performing authentication or a financial transaction on the host's behalf; and proximity-based access control that can extend to one or more additional host devices.

Litigation and docket status (as surfaced by search)

• W.D. Tex. case 7:25-cv-00531, Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation — the Google Patents "family has litigation" link resolves to this case. The complaint (Exhibit A) is styled as U.S. Patent No. 9,405,898, and a separate "Exhibit G – 898 Claim Chart" is listed. Reported filing date: 11/14/2025 (RPX Insight).
• The complaint reportedly asserts claim 8 of the '898 patent against Intel's Platform Trust Technology (PTT) and Converged Security and Management Engine (CSME), on the theory that PTT presents virtualized secure-element/TPM resources and CSME supplies the "model architecture" for hardware abstraction (per an Ex Parte complaint analysis; this is a third-party summary, not the court document itself).
• No CAFC 2026 docket specific to the '898 patent was found. The Proxense Federal Circuit appeals I located (25-2131 and 26-1025, Proxense v. Microsoft; 25-2168, Proxense v. Apple) concern other Proxense patents (e.g., U.S. 8,886,954 / IPRs of the '730 and '954 patents), not the '898 patent. I flag this explicitly as not confirmed to involve 9,405,898.
• One search result (ip fray, April 2026) states Proxense settled with Intel on March 24, 2026. If accurate, the '898 litigation against Intel may be resolved; I could not independently verify the settlement disposition from a primary court record in these searches, so treat that as unconfirmed.

Uncertainty / limitations

• The litigation summaries above (Ex Parte analysis, RPX, ip fray) are secondary sources; I did not retrieve the actual PACER complaint or a CAFC docket entry for the '898 patent itself.
• I found no 2026 CAFC docket naming this patent, so any statement that the '898 patent is on appeal in 2026 would be unsupported. All claim/bibliographic content is taken directly from the patent text, which is the reliable portion of this summary.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9405898.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,405,898 ("Secure element as a digital pocket")

Bottom line

Based on searches of patent-litigation trackers (Unified Patents, RPX Insight, Darts-IP via Google Patents, PACER/Justia/CourtListener, and the patent's own Google Patents "litigation" entries), I found one district-court case that asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,405,898. The Google Patents record for this patent flags exactly one U.S. case as "Family has litigation" and labels it the "First worldwide family litigation filed" — consistent with the single case below. I did not find any other case in which the '898 patent itself is a patent-in-suit. Note: several related Proxense patents (e.g., the '730, '954, '905, '042, '188, '989, '456, '332, '979, '672 patents) were asserted against Apple, Microsoft, Google, Samsung, LG, and Walmart, but on the records I reviewed, the '898 patent is not among the asserted patents in those cases.

Case 1 — Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation (the only '898 case identified)

How the '898 patent is used in the case: The complaint (35 pages) attaches Exhibit A – U.S. Patent No. 9,405,898 and Exhibit G – "898 Claim Chart." Proxense asserts at least independent claim 8 of the '898 patent (the hardware-abstraction / virtual-resource mapping claim), accusing Intel's Platform Trust Technology (PTT) and Converged Security and Management Engine (CSME) — in Intel Core (8th–14th Gen and later), Evo, and vPro platforms. The theory is that PTT "virtualizes secure element resources" and CSME supplies the "model architecture" that maps virtual resources to physical hardware, thereby practicing the hardware-abstraction claim. The '898 patent is one of six patents-in-suit (alongside the '456, '919, '792, '222, and '628 patents), with inducement, contributory, and willful-infringement allegations.

Sources:

• Google Patents, US9405898B2 (litigation entry / "First worldwide family litigation filed"): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9405898](/patent/US9405898)/en
• RPX Insight docket, 7:25-cv-00531: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-1172875230-proxense-v-intel
• PACERMonitor docket (shows Exhibits A and G): https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61206235/Proxense,_LLC_v_Intel_Corporation_
• Ex Parte complaint analysis (claim 8, PTT/CSME theory): https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/7:25-cv-00531/doc/analysis/1
• DocketAlarm case page (Judge Albright, Midland Division, filed Nov. 14, 2025): https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/7--25-cv-00531/Proxense_LLC_v._Intel_Corporation/
• ip fray (settlement reporting): https://ipfray.com/[ptab](/ptab)-abused-discretion-by-staying-[reexamination](/resources/patent-reviews)-that-favored-patentee-proxense-tells-federal-circuit/

Adjacent proceedings that do NOT involve the '898 patent (for context / to avoid confusion)

These are frequently confused with '898 litigation because they involve the same plaintiff (Proxense) and related patents, but the '898 patent is not asserted in them:

• Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00319 (W.D. Tex., Albright) — patents-in-suit include the '730, '954, '905, '042, '289, '960; stayed/related to IPRs.
• Proxense, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00143-ADA (W.D. Tex., Albright) — patents-in-suit include the '730, '954, '905, '042, '188, '989.
• Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:23-cv-00320 (W.D. Tex., Albright) — settled.
• Proxense, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00210-ADA (W.D. Tex., Albright) — terminated by consent judgment.
• Proxense, LLC v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) et al., No. 6:24-cv-00302 (W.D. Tex., Albright) — filed May 31, 2024; asserts the '730, '905, '989, '332, '456, '979, '152 patents, not '898.
• Proxense, LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-06657 (N.D. Ill.) — asserts the '672 patent, not '898.

PTAB / administrative proceedings — important caveat

The Intel v. Proxense PTAB proceedings I retrieved (IPR2025-00327, -00328, -00329, Paper 12, June 26, 2025 — a Director-level "settled expectations" decision) are inter partes reviews, not district-court litigation, and I could not confirm from the sources retrieved whether the '898 patent was one of the patents challenged in those IPRs. I do not want to assert that it was. IPR challenges against other Proxense patents (e.g., the '730, '954, '905, '188, '700) by Apple, Microsoft, and Samsung are documented, but for the '898 patent specifically I found no verified IPR petition in the material retrieved.

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corporation, 7:25-cv-00531 (W.D. Tex.), filed Nov. 14, 2025, asserts the '898 patent (Exhibit A; claim 8; '898 claim chart at Exhibit G).
• Moderate confidence: that this is the only case asserting the '898 patent. My search covered the major public litigation trackers, but a comprehensive PACER-wide search (or Westlaw/Darts-IP/Lexis) could surface a case not indexed in the sources I could reach. If you need a definitive negative, a dedicated PACER docket search on "9,405,898" across all districts is warranted.
• Lower confidence / reported but unverified here: the March 24, 2026 Intel settlement date and the absence of any formal order dismissing the '898 claims. These come from secondary reporting, not a court order I retrieved.
• I did not auto-correct or normalize any patent numbers or case identifiers; all numbers above are quoted as they appear in the sources.

I'll start by checking the canonical ODP block against live sources, since the structured data reports zero AIA proceedings but that's exactly the kind of thing that can lag.

The searches surfaced Proxense's broader campaign but I need to pin down whether any challenge targets 9,405,898 specifically (note the search noise around the different patent 11,495,898). Let me dig further.

Now I have a clearer picture: the '898 patent is asserted by Proxense against Intel in 2025, and there appear to be Intel IPRs against Proxense patents. I need to verify which patents those cover.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 9,405,898. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block reports no AIA trial proceedings, and my independent searching is consistent with that: I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition naming US 9,405,898 (Proxense's "Secure element as a digital pocket"). The defensive posture this gives a defendant is therefore the opposite of "hardened": the '898's claims are entirely untested at the PTAB, which means there is no FWD, no cancellation order, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to leverage — but also no adverse claim-construction or patentability record to attack. Any IPR you file would be a first-instance challenge on a clean slate, and it would run into the Director's 2025–2026 "settled expectations" doctrine (see Strategic summary).

Because the answer is "no proceedings," there are no per-proceeding entries to write. What follows instead is the adjacent Proxense-corpus picture, which is materially relevant because defendants frequently confuse these dockets.

⚠️ False-positive warning — 9,405,898 vs. 11,495,898

A search for "'898 patent" + "IPR" hits an Amphenol Corp. v. Credo Technology Group Ltd. petition, IPR2025-00607, on U.S. Patent No. 11,495,898 — a printed circuit board patent. Its papers flatly state: "The '898 patent has not previously been challenged in IPR… There is no parallel litigation involving the '898 patent." That is a different patent (five digits longer, different owner, different technology). Do not import its status into an analysis of 9,405,898.

Adjacent proceedings — related Proxense patents, NOT the '898

These are the PTAB matters that actually exist in the Proxense corpus. Every one of them is on a different patent number than 9,405,898.

Federal Circuit: Proxense filed its opening brief in a consolidated appeal from IPR2024-00233, IPR2024-01334, and IPR2024-00846 (all on the '954 patent), arguing (i) APA violation in the PTAB's stay of the parallel ex parte reexamination, (ii) claim-construction error on "a third party that operates a trusted authority," and (iii) an Appointments Clause challenge. I could not independently verify the CAFC docket number from the sources retrieved — verify before citing.

Litigation context for the '898 itself: Proxense asserted claim 8 of the '898 (the virtualization/hardware-abstraction method claim) against Intel in Proxense LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 7:25-cv-00531 (W.D. Tex.), accusing Intel Platform Trust Technology (PTT) and the Converged Security and Management Engine (CSME). Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9405898/en (family litigation entry); complaint analysis at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/7:25-cv-00531/doc/analysis/1

Caveat on search limits: my searches were truncated mid-investigation. Given the July 2025 Intel complaint, a § 315(b)-timed petition on the '898 could theoretically have been filed in late 2025 / early 2026 and simply not yet be indexed by ODP. I found no such petition, but I cannot affirmatively rule it out with the same confidence I attach to the other entries above.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 19 claims of US 9,405,898 are UNTESTED — no claim is canceled, none has been confirmed. Compare that to the '730 patent (all claims CANCELED by adverse judgment) and the '042 patent (claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 14 CANCELED under § 103). The '898 is the one Proxense patent in this family that has never been before the Board. If a demand letter cites claim 8 (the virtualization/mapping claim) or claims 1 and 6 (wireless-mount / storage-drive claims), those claims are live and enforceable — you cannot dismiss them as already-cancelled. The '898 faces infringement litigation, not a PTAB invalidity record.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR has ever been instituted on the '898, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to it. There is no petitioner-privity chain to worry about, and equally no petitioner who has already burned your best art. All § 102/§ 103 grounds are available to you. Note, however, that the '898's family members have consumed substantial prior art — Burger, Robinson, Orsini, Ludke, Kon (in the '954 IPRs) and the "Pocket Vault" system art that Samsung litigated in Proxense v. Samsung — and if any of that art is equally applicable to the '898 claims, its prior use by another party on a different patent does not estop you and does not create § 325(d) exposure unless it was actually before the examiner during the '898's own prosecution.

The real obstacle is discretionary denial, not the merits. The '898 issued 2016-08-02; as of today it has been in force more than ten years. Under the line running from Dabico Airport Sols., Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 (PTAB 2025-06-18), through Intel Corp. v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2025-00327/-00328/-00329, Paper 12 (PTAB 2025-06-26), Acting Director Stewart discretionarily denied Intel's petitions on patents in force "over nine years" for settled expectations — even though there was no district court trial date. Proxense will raise this immediately, and the '898 is a better settled-expectations candidate than those patents were, because Proxense has asserted it (against Intel, 2025) in the relevant technology space. Per Stewart's own guidance, a patent that has been "commercialized, asserted, marked, licensed, or otherwise applied in a petitioner's particular technology space" is one where settled expectations favor denial. Your two escape hatches are the ones she articulated: (1) a significant change in law since issuance bearing on patentability (hard, because § 101 is not an IPR ground — you need a §§ 102/103 development), or (2) showing the '898 has not been applied in your technology space — viable only if you are meaningfully outside the secure-element/authentication space. The strongest factor-on-factor route that has actually worked is material examiner error (e.g., art cited in an ISR or in a parent/child application that the examiner overlooked).

Pattern signals. No defensive aggregator appears in the chain on this patent — the Unified Patents data point in the '898's family-litigation entry is a district-court litigation record (7:25-cv-00531), not a Unified-filed IPR. Proxense litigates aggressively (Samsung, Google, Intel, Apple, Microsoft, LG) and now appeals PTAB losses to the Federal Circuit, so expect the patent owner to contest institution and to appeal any adverse FWD rather than settle quietly on this patent.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the zero. Before relying on "no PTAB activity," pull the '898's PTAB E2E record and the USPTO Patent Center "Post-Grant/PTAB" tab, and check the '898's children (US 9,892,250; 10,909,229; 11,914,695; 12,373,538; and application 19/272,839) — a petition on a continuation can be used as a proxy attack on the same disclosure.
2. If you are a defendant being asserted on the '898 now: you have no FWD to link and no cancelled claim to stand on. Your two real levers are (a) a § 112/claim-construction attack on the "virtual resources"/"model architecture"/"hardware abstraction" limitations in claim 8, which is the claim actually being asserted, and (b) an IPR filed inside the § 315(b) one-year window from service of the complaint, briefed head-on against settled expectations from page one.
3. If you do file, front-load the § 314(a) briefing. Do not file and hope; pre-empt Intel v. Proxense with either a documented examiner material error in the '898's prosecution history or an affirmative showing that the '898 has never been applied in your specific technology space, with evidence (no marking, no licensing, no assertion against your sector).
4. Time the milestones against real clocks. No institution decisions exist, so there are no statutory deadlines running. Once you file, the Board's § 314(b) deadline is 6 months from the petition's filing date, and the FWD is due within 12 months of institution under § 316(a)(11). Note the district court's parallel posture: Judge Albright partially granted Apple's motion to stay pending IPR in Proxense v. Apple, No. 6:24-cv-00143 (order 2025-05-27) — a granted-stay track record is a useful data point if you seek a stay in a Proxense case.
5. Monitor the CAFC appeal from IPR2024-00233 / -01334 / -00846 (the '954 patent). A Proxense win vacating those unpatentability findings would stiffen its posture across the whole family, including the '898; a loss would sharpen your invalidity theories by supplying a Federal Circuit-approved construction of the family's shared "access message" and "trusted authority" limitations.

Bottom line for a defendant: the "the troll's claims are already dead" narrative does not apply to US 9,405,898. It is an untested, un-IPR'd, currently-asserted patent with a § 315(b)-relevant live litigation, and the main thing standing between you and an institution decision is a discretionary-denial doctrine that Proxense is well positioned to invoke.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9405898/en · https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.[1217252](/patent/1217252)/gov.uscourts.txwd.1217252.95.0.pdf (adverse-judgment recitation) · https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00573/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/docs/08-04-2025-Board/Final_Written_Decision__original-27-Judgment_Final_Written_Decision.pdf?download=true · https://geminilaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/[2358000](/patent/2358000)-[2358180](/patent/2358180)-intel-proxense.pdf · http://www.finnegan.com/print/content/[424345](/patent/424345)/Intel-from-Intel-Acting-Director-Gives-Guidance-on-How-to-Defeat-Settled-Expectations.pdf · https://ipfray.com/ptab-abused-discretion-by-staying-reexamination-that-favored-patentee-proxense-tells-federal-circuit/

I'll research the assignment record for US 9,405,898, starting with the USPTO assignment data and Proxense's corporate history.

I found a related Proxense assignment record. Let me now target the '898 patent specifically and Proxense's corporate history.

Let me pin down the specific assignment reel/frame for the '898 patent and Proxense's prosecution/recording counsel.

I ran out of tool budget mid-investigation, so I'll report what I verified and flag the gaps explicitly rather than fill them with inference.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 9,405,898 B2

Verification sources used: Google Patents legal events for US 9,405,898 (reproduced in the patent text supplied), a sibling Proxense assignment record surfaced via Docket Alarm exhibit PDFs, Oregon/Florida Secretary of State business registries, PTAB/litigation exhibits, and ip fray.

⚠️ Primary-source gap, stated up front. I could not retrieve the USPTO Patent Assignment Search / Assignment Center Abstract of Title page for 9,405,898 itself, so I do not have the reel/frame number, the execution date, or the recorded correspondent for this patent's assignment. The Google Patents legal-events feed for this patent shows only one post-filing reassignment entry. Everything below that depends on that record is labeled accordingly. Anyone relying on this should pull the Assignment Center record directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 9405898).

Inventors

Pattern note — the usual red flag is absent. The tell you asked me to watch for (multiple inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, preceding a fire-sale) does not apply. There is a single inventor; he is the controlling principal of the assignee, not an employee who left. The patent was filed by Proxense, LLC as applicant (front page: "(71) Applicant: Proxense, LLC, Bend, OR"), and Giobbi assigned to the very entity he manages. This is a founder-assigns-to-his-own-company chain, not an inventor-exodus chain.

Discrepancy to carry forward: Proxense's own counsel letter (July 25, 2016) states "Proxense was established in 2005," while the Proxense v. Microsoft complaint (W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00319) states "Proxense was founded in 2001." The Oregon registry shows the LLC's foreign-qualification date as 2011-07-12, and the Florida doc number (M07000005146) and FEIN (20-3683651) point to an earlier formation. I have not reconciled these and do not auto-correct them.

Original assignee

Proxense, LLC — a Delaware-style single-purpose LLC operated out of Bend, Oregon.

• Designated address of record on the assignment: 689 NW Stonepine Drive, Bend, Oregon 97701 (as recited in the sibling Proxense assignment record and the Florida filing).
• Registered agent (OR): Corporation Service Company, 1127 Broadway St NE Ste 310, Salem, OR 97301. Oregon entity 785675-92, status ACT.
• Florida registration: Doc. M07000005146, principal place of business Enterprise Commerce Center #11, 5001 NW 13th Ave, Suites H & I, Deerfield Beach, FL 33064-8649; registered agent Michael Karasick; FEIN 20-3683651. (Florida annual report filed 01/22/2015.)
• Primary line of business: Proximity-based authentication. Marketing materials referenced TruProx™ (proximity interaction) and ProxMED™ (healthcare access), and the Microsoft complaint pleads that "from approximately 2004–2012, Proxense developed, inter alia, mobile payment technologies."
• Status: Entity is active/operating as a licensing-and-enforcement vehicle, not a product company of record today. ip fray (April 2026) describes Proxense as "a non-practising entity (NPE) and former operating company focused on enforcing patented biometric authentication and wireless communication technology, which its CEO John Giobbi recently discussed." No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition of Proxense was found in the records retrieved.

Assignment timeline

Recorded assignments for US 9,405,898: exactly one.

• YYYY-MM-DD (executed): not retrieved / recorded 2014-08-24 — Reel __/ (not retrieved)
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: GIOBBI, JOHN JOSEPH
  • Assignee: PROXENSE, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. I cannot name the recording attorney of record for this entry. (Caution: Proxense's patent prosecution firm of record on family members, e.g. US 8,886,954 and US 11,086,979, is Patent Law Works LLP ("Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Patent Law Works LLP"; FreePatentsOnline lists the agent as "Patent Law Works/Proxense"). That is a front-page prosecution attribution, not an assignment-recording correspondent, and I am not asserting it as the correspondent on this reel.)
  • Context: In-house/formation-stage assignment — sole founder assigns his invention to his own company contemporaneously with filing. Not an acquisition, not a fire-sale, not a transfer-to-asserter.

No further recorded transfers. Google Patents shows no subsequent reassignment for the '898 after 2014-08-24. There is no assignment to a second LLC, no security agreement, no merger, no change of name. The current assignee remains Proxense, LLC — the same entity that filed and prosecuted the application.

Cross-check data point (different patent — do not conflate). The closest Proxense assignment record I could actually retrieve in full is for US 9,298,905: Reel/Frame 034843 / 0145, executed and recorded 2015-01-29, Assignor GIOBBI, JOHN J., Assignee PROXENSE, LLC, 689 NW Stonepine Dr, Bend, Oregon 97701. That is a '905 record, not the '898; I include it only to show the form and address Proxense's recordings take, and to caution that the '898's own reel/frame is a different number that I failed to retrieve.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9405898
    2005 : Proxense established per its counsel
    2013 : Provisional filed by Giobbi
    2014 : Non-provisional filed
         : Giobbi assigns to Proxense LLC
    2016 : Patent issued
         : Portfolio-wide sale offer to Apple
    2021 : First Proxense enforcement wave against Samsung
    2025 : Suit filed against Intel on claim 8
    2026 : Intel dispute reportedly settled

Note: the year labels for 2005 and 2021/2026 are context events, not recorded assignments. The only recorded assignment event is the 2014 entry.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification: the ownership chain itself is unusually clean — a single recorded assignment (recorded 2014-08-24) from sole inventor Giobbi to Proxense, LLC, the entity that filed the application and still owns the patent, with no intervening shell LLC, no cascade, and no pre-litigation transfer (the assignment predates the first '898 suit by ~11 years). The "moderate" call rests on one strong signal: the current owner is a documented non-practising former operating company that is now a high-frequency plaintiff asserting this patent (Exhibit A / claim 8 against Intel in 7:25-cv-00531), supported by ip fray's express NPE characterization. It is not "high confidence," because the tell-tale structural NPE signals — shell-entity transfer, cascading LLC chain, pre-suit transfer, repeat recording correspondent — are all absent or unretrievable, and I could not confirm this patent's reel/frame or recorded correspondent.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent number 9405898) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — pull the Abstract of Title to (a) capture the reel/frame and execution date for the 2014-08-24 recording, (b) confirm no second record exists, and (c) capture the correspondent of record, which is the one field I most wanted and could not obtain.

Carry-forward caveats: (1) reel/frame, execution date, and correspondent for the '898 are unverified — do not cite a reel number for this patent without pulling Assignment Center; (2) "Proxense founded 2001 vs. 2005" is an unreconciled discrepancy between the Microsoft complaint and Proxense's own 2016 counsel letter; (3) the claim that the Intel matter "settled March 24, 2026" is secondary reporting (ip fray), not a court order I retrieved.

I'll research the cited prior art references for US 9,405,898, starting with the patent's own citation list and verifying each reference.

Now let me research the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,405,898 B2 (Secure element as a digital pocket)

Method note / limitation. You asked me to search the USPTO database for the exact number 9405898 and analyze "each patent citation." I have the authoritative full text of the patent (Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US9405898/en), which contains the patent's own front-page Citations (10) list — the universe of references formally cited against it. I was cut off by a tool step-limit before I could pull the USPTO PatentCenter file-wrapper (PTO‑892 / office actions) for the '898 application, so the examiner-vs-third-party attribution below is inferred from the Google Patents "cited by examiner (*)" markers, not confirmed from a PTO form. This is flagged explicitly so nothing here is mistaken for a file-wrapper citation.

I have deliberately not included the "Cited By (15)" or "Family Cites Families (1186)" lists — those are later art and sibling-family art, respectively, not prior art cited against the '898 patent.

A. The 10 cited references (full citation, dates, description, implicated claims)

B. Per-reference §102 assessment

Below I map each reference to the independent claims (1 and 8) and notable dependents, and state honestly whether it is a clean single‑reference anticipation or merely §103 fodder. Key point: none of the ten references appears to be a clean, complete §102 anticipation of independent claim 1, because claim 1's core limitation is wirelessly mounting the secure element's memory as a storage drive of the host — a "USB‑drive‑without‑the‑USB" concept that the cited art approaches but does not squarely disclose. That is consistent with your earlier finding that the live litigation asserts claim 8, not claim 1.

#1 — US 2006/0069814 A1 (Abraham / Microsoft) → most relevant to claims 2 & 4; §103 for claim 1.
This is the closest of the storage references to claim 1's architecture: a portable memory device with a wireless (NFC) transmitter, an internal biometric reader, and credential‑gated partitioned memory (public/private). However, its wireless channel is used to transmit selected data components to an NFC reader (tag‑memory paradigm), not to mount the memory as a storage drive on an associated host. So: strong §103 combination material for claims 1/2/4; §102 only if "wirelessly mount… as a storage drive" were construed extremely broadly to cover NFC data transfer — which I would not expect to hold. Its biometric‑restricted access to stored data maps well onto claims 2 and 4 and the authentication‑gating aspect of claim 3.

#2 — US 7,272,723 B1 (SafeNet) → §103 for claims 1/19; §102 marginal for claim 19.
Discloses a portable token with memory, processor, on‑token user authentication, and conditional host access to private data — essentially the "single device" concept of dependent claim 19 (storage + key + authentication in one device), and the memory+processor+authentication elements of claims 2–4. But it requires a physical USB connection; it contains no wireless communication and no wireless mounting. Therefore it cannot anticipate claim 1 (which requires wireless communication and wireless mounting) and is best used as a secondary §103 reference.

#3 — US 2008/0209571 A1 / US 8,745,754 B2 (SCM / Identiv) → strongest §102 candidate for claim 8 (arguable); solid §103.
Of all ten references, this is the one that most directly reads on claim 8's abstraction idea: a device that presents "virtual" logical interfaces and maps them onto the physical resources that actually exist, so the host/system interacts with a consistent set of resources regardless of the underlying hardware. The mismatch is layer: SCM's "virtual multi‑interface driver" sits on the host side and virtualizes interfaces to the host, whereas '898 claim 8 recites "presenting, to a secure element, one or more virtual resources" and "mapping the one or more virtual resources to one or more available physical resources based on a model architecture for the secure element." A plaintiff/examiner could argue the SCM virtual‑interface mapping discloses the "hardware abstraction" concept; a defendant could distinguish on the secure‑element‑centric framing and the "model architecture" limitation. Net: high‑value §103 reference; arguable, not clean, §102 for claim 8 (and it informs dependent claims 9/16/17 on model/virtual architectures).

#4 — US 7,512,806 B2 (PalmSource / Lemke) → §102-relevant to claims 2/4; §103 for 12/13.
Directly discloses biometric authentication to gate access to the portable device and to a network, including a deny‑and‑power‑down on mismatch and remote management of the biometric template. This maps onto claims 2 and 4 (biometric sensor + owner authentication) and the "authenticate then permit access" logic of 12; the proximity limitation of claims 12/13, however, is not clearly disclosed (it is access via a wireless device, not proximity‑triggered access as claimed). Strong §102/§103 predicate for the biometric‑dependent claims.

#5 — US 2011/0246790 A1 (Gainteam) → §103 for claims 1/2/3/4/6; §102 marginal for claim 6.
Discloses a self‑contained storage drive with biometric authentication, an embedded battery, a wireless module, and (notably for claim 6) security that operates independent of a host. Its storage↔host coupling is still via a physical interface (USB/PCI‑E/eSATA), with wireless used for network transmission/GPS — so it does not anticipate the "wirelessly mounted as a storage drive" limitation of claim 1 or the "appears as a physically connected storage drive" limitation of claim 6. Good §103 combination with #1 (Abraham) for claims 1–4.

#6 — US 8,296,573 B2 (IBM) → §103 for claims 2/4; weak §102.
Concerns enrollment of biometric data (and remote self‑enrollment), i.e., the setup side of biometric authentication rather than proximity‑gated access. Relevant to how claim 2's "authenticate the user as an owner" is populated (cf. '898's own setup module storing biometrics in write‑once memory). No anticipation of claims 1 or 8.

#7 — US 2013/0019323 A1 (Ericsson) → §103 background for claims 8/16/17.
Secure‑element application management via server. Its relevance is to the "secure element" as a managed platform (claim 8 framing; virtual‑model dependent claim 17), but it does not disclose the virtual‑resource→physical‑resource mapping that is claim 8's heart. Background/§103 only.

#8 — US 8,494,576 B1 (Sprint) → §103 for claims 1/12/13.
NFC authentication/validation to access corporate data — wireless authentication for access control. Supports the general "wireless authenticating token grants access" theme of claims 12/13, but discloses no memory‑mounting (claim 1) and no proximity/duration configurability (claim 7). §103.

#9 — US 8,577,091 B2 (U. Maryland) → §103 background for claims 2/4.
Attacks a different problem: authenticating the biometric scanner itself (anti‑spoofing). Tangential to claims 2/4 (which need a sensor that obtains a characteristic and an authentication module); useful only as evidence of the maturity of biometric‑sensor art. No anticipation of 1/8.

#10 — US 8,738,925 B1 (Fitbit) → §103 for claims 1/2/3.
Wireless portable biometric device syncing to a companion device — relevant to the "wireless coupling between a portable biometric device and a host" abstraction of claim 1 and to the biometric‑sensor element of claim 2. It does not address mounting storage, secure‑element architecture, or gated drive access. §103 background.

C. Bottom line on the strongest prior art

• Most dangerous reference against independent claim 8: US 2008/0209571 A1 (SCM Microsystems / Identiv; granted as US 8,745,754 B2) — the virtual‑interface/hardware‑abstraction concept. Expect this to be central in any validity challenge to claim 8 (which is the claim your earlier research indicates is being asserted against Intel's PTT/CSME).
• Most dangerous references against dependent claims 2–4 (biometrics): US 7,512,806 (PalmSource) and US 2006/0069814 (Abraham/Microsoft), with US 8,577,091 (Maryland) and US 8,296,573 (IBM) supplying scanner‑authentication/enrollment support.
• Most dangerous references against independent claim 1 (wireless storage drive): US 2006/0069814 (Abraham/Microsoft) and US 2011/0246790 (Gainteam) in combination — neither alone discloses wirelessly mounting the memory as a storage drive, which is the likely novelty fulcrum of claim 1.
• No single cited reference anticipates claim 1 or claim 8 in full on the record I can see; the realistic attack is §103 combinations, particularly storing-device + wireless-transmission art (Abraham, Gainteam) for claim 1, and virtual‑interface/hardware‑abstraction art (SCM/Identiv) for claim 8.

D. Caveats you should carry forward

1. File‑wrapper citation attribution is inferred, not verified. I could not pull the USPTO PTO‑892/office actions before hitting the tool step‑limit; the "* examiner‑cited" vs "applicant‑cited" split in Table A is read off Google Patents' markers and should be confirmed against PatentCenter for US 14/274,711.
2. Dates are taken from the patent front page / the reference front pages as surfaced; the '898 priority date is 2013‑05‑10 (consistent with the earlier summary), so all ten references (latest issued 2014‑05‑27, vs. priority 2013‑05‑10) qualify as prior art under at least §102(a)/(e)/(b) depending on their own dates.
3. I did not verify the full text of the five later references (#6–#10) beyond their front‑page abstracts/claims; my §102/§103 characterizations for those are correspondingly higher‑level and should be checked against the actual disclosures before being relied on.
4. Consistent with the ground rules, I have not auto‑corrected any identifier; e.g., #1 is cited as US 2006/0069814 A1 (its grant is US 7,747,797 B2), and #3 as US 2008/0209571 A1 (its grant is US 8,745,754 B2).

I'll research the prior-art references listed on this patent's page so the § 103 analysis is grounded in what those references actually disclose.

Let me pull the remaining references, including the two most relevant to the proximity/biometric and secure-element-authentication teachings.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,405,898 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on inputs. This analysis uses the prior-art references listed on the patent's own Google Patents page (the "Citations (10)" set, plus the examiner-cited Giobbi reference). I treat the patent text at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9405898](/patent/US9405898)/en as authoritative for claim language, and the retrieved reference texts (cited by URL below) for what each reference discloses. Where I could not retrieve a reference's full text before exhausting tool calls (US8738925B1, US8296573B2, US8577091B2, US7512806B2, US20130019323A1, US20070245158A1), I mark claims built on them as lower confidence rather than asserting disclosure I did not verify.

1. Governing framework and critical date

• Effective filing / priority date: 2013‑05‑10 (provisional 61/822,057), with a second provisional 61/864,237 (2013‑08‑09). For § 103, the relevant question is what a PHOSITA would have known as of the priority date.
• Controlling law: Graham v. John Deere (scope/content; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations); KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (motivation may come from "market forces," "design incentives," "known techniques," and predictable variation; TSM is not the exclusive test); In re Keller / In re Merck (test each claim against the combined teachings, not reference-by-reference).
• Field / analogous art: portable secure tokens, wireless mass storage, smart-card/secure-element authentication, and proximity access control. All ten cited references are in the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the problem the '898 patent addresses (consolidating wallet/keys/storage into one secure token).

Flag: all references in the patent's "Families Citing this family" list (e.g., US9705676B2, US20150172920A1, DE102014200533A1, CN105591672A) post-date 2013‑05‑10 and are therefore not § 102/§ 103 prior art to the '898 patent. They should not be used in an invalidity theory. US20160306956A1 is the '898 family's own later publication.

2. Independent Claim 1 (wirelessly mounted storage drive)

Elements: (a) secure element with memory + wireless storage module executable by its processor; (b) associated host device with link module; (c) the two cooperate to wirelessly mount at least a portion of the SE memory as a storage drive of the host.

KSR motivation to combine Dalen + SCM + SafeNet. Dalen expressly identifies the problem the '898 patent recites in its Background — physical USB connection is inconvenient and "not all devices have a USB port" — and solves it with wireless NFC transfer. SCM supplies the known technique for making a remote/limited-interface memory appear to the host as a mounted mass-storage drive. SafeNet supplies the "personal key" form factor and expressly motivates eliminating physical coupling (IR). Combining a wireless mass-storage token with a host-side driver that presents it as a drive is the predictable use of known techniques to achieve the stated, expected benefit (wireless convenience). SCM's own specification even names WiFi and Bluetooth as suitable single interfaces, supplying the link the combination needs.

Claim‑1 vulnerability (Proxense's best non-obviousness argument). Dalen's NFC transfer is tag/peer transfer, not block-level mounting of a file-system drive; SCM's mount is over a wired USB interface. A patentee can argue the combination is impermissible hindsight because no reference teaches wirelessly mounting a drive — only (i) wirelessly transferring data, and (ii) wired drive mounting. Under KSR this is a strong-but-not-conclusive defense; the counter is that substituting a known wireless link (WiFi/Bluetooth, expressly listed in SCM at [0023]–[0024] and used in Gainteam) for SCM's USB link to achieve Dalen's admitted wireless goal is precisely the "predictable variation" KSR permits. Net assessment: claim 1 is reasonably likely obvious, but this is the element a petitioner must prove most carefully.

3. Dependent Claims 2–7 (biometrics, gating, virtual sensor, drive appearance, proximity/duration)

Motivation. Dalen, SafeNet, and Gainteam independently motivate gating portable-storage access on biometric owner authentication (data-loss/theft prevention; Gainteam explicitly criticizes devices whose "biometric protection gate" can be bypassed). SCM supplies both the abstraction-layer mechanism and the express suggestion to substitute a biometric reader for the smart card — an unusually direct teaching for claims 5 and 6.

4. Independent Claim 8 (virtual resources → physical resources based on a "model architecture")

Elements: (1) presenting one or more virtual resources to a secure element; (2) mapping them to available physical resources based on a model architecture for the secure element, to provide hardware abstraction, resources varying by architecture and host, with consistent interaction regardless of physical-resource variation/location.

Primary reference — SCM US20080209571A1. This reference is the closest art and essentially discloses the abstraction concept:

• It provides a "virtual multi-interface driver" that "report[s] at least two logical interfaces to a system software of the host," including "at least one virtual interface in addition to the single electrical interface."
• "The virtual interface is a logical one and does not physically exist on the [device]," yet "the host system accepts that there is a mass storage device and a smart card device present in the system."
• Its stated purpose is to "overcome the architectural limitation and still expose the device as a multi-interface device," so that "with limited hardware, it is possible to get the complete functionality of composite devices," and to provide "backward compatibility."

That is "presenting virtual resources … and mapping [them] to available physical resources … to provide hardware abstraction," with the resource set changing by architecture/host and software interacting consistently.

Secondary references. US20130019323A1 (Ericsson) — "Methods, Secure Element, Server, Computer Programs … for Improved Application Management" — evidences that using a secure element as a programmable platform was known (not retrieved in full; lower confidence). US7512806B2 (PalmSource) — controlling access by a wireless device — supports the access-control context (not retrieved in full).

Motivation to combine (SCM + Dalen + SafeNet + Ericsson). SCM's own stated goal (limited hardware supporting full composite functionality; backward compatibility; using OS-supplied drivers for compatibility) is the same design objective the '898 patent attributes to its abstraction layer ("hardware abstraction increases the versatility"). Under KSR, implementing known virtualization/abstraction on a known secure element to obtain the predictable benefit of hardware-independence is an obvious design choice.

Claim‑8 vulnerability. The '898 patent claims the abstraction from the secure element's perspective (SE's I/O interface 208 sees virtual resources; the SE "announces" its architecture and maps to resources of another device "when requested and permitted by the secure element architecture"). SCM's abstraction sits on the host side and maps one device interface upward to host logical interfaces. A patentee can argue the mapping direction/ownership and the "model architecture" taxonomy (stand-alone / proxy / virtual) are not taught. This is a colorable but, in my view, weak distinction — the location of a software abstraction layer is a routine implementation choice, and it is exactly this claim (8) that Proxense has asserted against Intel's PTT/CSME (per the earlier litigation section), which suggests the patentee itself views claim 8 as its broadest hardware-abstraction claim and therefore most exposed.

5. Dependent Claims 9–19

6. Summary of the strongest § 103 combination set

A compact, defensible prima facie case can be built as follows:

1. Claim 1: Dalen (US20060069814A1) + SCM (US20080209571A1) + SafeNet (US7272723B1); optionally Gainteam (US20110246790A1) for the wireless module and self-contained power.
2. Claims 2–4: + Dalen/SafeNet/Gainteam biometrics; Giobbi (US20070245158A1) for proximity+biometric motivation.
3. Claim 5: + SCM's express "biometric reader" alternative and virtual-interface teaching; US8494576B1 for remote/host-side biometric authentication.
4. Claim 6: + SCM's "drive letter"/"look and feel" disclosure.
5. Claim 7: + Dalen's proximity initiation and predetermined-time re-authentication (weakest link).
6. Claim 8: SCM (primary) + Ericsson US20130019323A1 + Dalen.
7. Claims 9–11: + SCM + US8494576B1 (proxy/on-behalf-of-host authentication).
8. Claims 12–15: + Dalen + Giobbi (proximity).
9. Claims 16–17: + SafeNet/Dalen (stand-alone) and SCM (virtual/emulated device).
10. Claim 18: + SafeNet ("portable from platform to platform") and SCM (OS-driver compatibility).
11. Claim 19: + Gainteam's explicit single-device consolidation motivation + Dalen's multi-function buttons + SafeNet's password/certificate/wallet functions.

7. Caveats, contradictions, and limits of this analysis

1. Reference-completeness caveat. I retrieved full/near-full text for Dalen, SCM, SafeNet, Sprint US8494576B1, and Gainteam. I did not retrieve full text for US8738925B1 (Fitbit), US8296573B2 (IBM), US8577091B2 (U. Maryland), US7512806B2 (PalmSource), US20130019323A1 (Ericsson), or US20070245158A1 (Giobbi). Claims/summary mappings relying on those references are flagged as lower confidence above; the core claim‑1 and claim‑8 cases rest on Dalen + SCM, which I did verify.
2. The '898 patent's own specification is not prior art, but it frames the field. Its Background (keys, wallet, thumb drive, password manager) independently supplies the "market forces / long-felt need" narrative that KSR uses to support motivation to combine.
3. Date inconsistency flagged. The task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the system context gives 2026‑09‑19, and the earlier summary section noted a 2013‑05‑09 vs. 2013‑05‑10 priority-date discrepancy between Unified Patents and Google Patents. None of these affects the § 103 conclusion, because every asserted reference predates both candidate priority dates except where noted (Fitbit 2013‑01‑07 and Sprint's 2012‑05‑03 filing both still predate 2013‑05‑10).
4. Secondary considerations are unevidenced here. The prior sections document the Proxense v. Intel suit (W.D. Tex. 7:25‑cv‑00531) asserting claim 8, and the family's continuations — evidence of commercial activity, but no record of a nexus between any secondary consideration (long-felt need, unexpected results, licensing) and the claimed subject matter was retrieved. Absent such nexus, secondary considerations would not overcome a well-supported KSR combination.
5. No verified IPR. As the earlier section states, I could not confirm that the '898 patent itself was challenged in Intel's IPR2025‑00327/‑00328/‑00329; any obviousness grounds there are not reflected in this analysis.

Bottom line: On the cited art, claims 1–19 of US 9,405,898 present a viable § 103 challenge, with the Dalen + SCM + SafeNet combination doing the heaviest lifting on claim 1 and SCM's virtual multi-interface driver doing so on claim 8. The two genuine soft spots a patentee would exploit are (i) the absence of a reference expressly teaching wireless drive mounting (as opposed to wireless data transfer or wired mounting) for claim 1, and (ii) the direction/locus of the abstraction layer and the "model architecture" taxonomy for claim 8.