US 9659472

I'll research this specific patent number across public databases.

Let me verify the specific claims of US 9,659,472 (not its siblings) and check for Federal Circuit docket activity.

Let me pin down the appeals/PTAB history specific to this patent number and confirm the exact claim set.

US 9,659,472 B2 — Verified Record

Caveat on sourcing before the substance: My searches returned the patent's own front-matter/abstract/description (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline), its PTAB prosecution record, and family/sibling data. I could not retrieve the verbatim, issued claim text of this patent. The claim language available online under similar titles belongs to sibling continuations (notably US 9,576,452), which is a different patent number with a different claim set. Per your rule, I am not merging those. Where I discuss claims below, I flag exactly what is verified vs. inferred.

Bibliographic data (US 9,659,472 B2)

Continuity: The '472 patent is a continuation of Ser. No. 15/241,708 (now US 9,576,452), itself a continuation of Ser. No. 15/047,218 (now US 9,478,110), continuing back through a chain of continuations to the 2005 priority application. It has a long list of same-titled siblings (e.g., US 8,884,762; 8,890,691; 8,896,447; 9,135,800; 9,171,441; 9,269,247; 9,396,631; 9,501,913; 9,577,645; 9,858,778; 10,062,266; 10,297,139; 10,403,122; 10,600,313; 11,721,198; 12,205,457). Note the "Expired – Fee Related" label is Google's status field and is inconsistent with a listed 2026-12-14 expiration — I'd treat the fee-status label as unverified.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9659472/en ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[9659472](/patent/9659472).html

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 predetermined period of time. A counter inactivates the programmable key after a predetermined maximum number of activations."

Plain-language overview of the invention

Retail anti-theft devices (alarm modules tethered to merchandise) are normally disarmed with a physical/electrical/magnetic key, and a stolen key works at any store using the same hardware. This patent describes a three-part programmable system to defeat that:

1. Programming station — a tamper-resistant, externally powered unit (key-locked via a mechanical tumbler switch) that generates a random security code ("Security Disarm Code"/SDC) unique to that station/store, holds it in non-volatile memory, and wirelessly (IR) writes it into a programmable key placed in its port.
2. Programmable key — stores the SDC, has an internal battery, an activation switch, and an LED/light pipe. It has an internal timer (e.g., 96 hours; alternates 6–12 hours in the later embodiment) that invalidates the SDC so a stolen key self-expires, and an activation counter that permanently kills the key after a maximum number of uses so the battery never fails mid-use. Later embodiments add electrical contacts or an inductive (ferrite-core coil) interface to also transfer power to a passive lock/security device.
3. Security device / alarm module — receives and permanently stores the SDC from the key on first "arming," sounds an alarm if a sense loop/cable/plunger switch indicates tampering, and sounds the alarm rather than disarming if a key with a non-matching SDC is presented. It also has an end-of-life battery timer with a near-end-of-life warning.

Method counterpart: program the key at the station → program the device from the key → match codes to disarm/re-arm → let the key's SDC expire to force periodic refresh.

Independent claims — what is and is not verified

• Verified: The patent contains a claim set extending at least to claim 45. In Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc., IPR2018-01138, the petitioner challenged claims 1–10 and 12–45 (claim 11 not among the challenged claims). That is the only claim-number evidence I could confirm for the '472 specifically.
• Not verified: The actual wording of claims 1, 27, 32 (or whatever the independents are) in the '472. I did not obtain them, and I will not attribute the sibling '452's claim language to this patent.

Based on the specification text of the '472 (which I do have) and the family's consistent claim architecture, the independents are almost certainly of these three functional types — presented as inference, not quotation:

1. System claim — programming station (logic circuit generating/p porting an SDC) + programmable key with SDC memory and an end insertable in the station port + security device with alarm, SDC memory, its own port, and control upon code matching.
2. Method claim — inserting the key end into the station port, actuating a mechanical/hardware switch to program the SDC into the key, programming the SDC into the security device, attaching the device to merchandise, inserting the key into the device port, controlling the device on a code match.
3. System claim variant — a single security code unique to the programming station shared by key and device.

If you need the literal claim language, the authoritative sources are the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Public Search full-text (App. 15/397,362) or the granted PDF — I did not have those documents in this session.

Litigation / administrative record touching this patent number

• PTAB IPR2018-01138 — Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc., filed 2018-05-22, instituted 2018-12-06, Final Written Decision 2019-12-05, terminated 2019-12-05. Verified against docket records. (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-01138/Mobile_Tech_Inc._v._InVue_Security_Products_Inc/)
• PTAB PGR2018-00004 — listed as filed, not instituted on the merits.
• PTAB IPR2017-01900 and IPR2017-01901 — both listed with Final Written Decisions in the patent's family-litigation record.
• District court — N.C. W.D. 3:16-cv-00734 and 3:17-cv-00270; N.D. Cal. 3:17-cv-00075.
• Federal Circuit — the patent page's family record links one CAFC matter, No. 19-1779.

On your specific request about CAFC 2026 dockets

I found no 2026 Federal Circuit docket activity for US 9,659,472. The only Federal Circuit case linked to this patent number in the record is No. 19-1779, which is a 2019-era appeal, not a 2026 one. My search of Federal Circuit 2026 materials returned unrelated matters (e.g., a Court of International Trade refund case, No. 25-0812) and nothing naming this patent. I cannot rule out a very recent 2026 filing that is not yet indexed, but I have no authoritative support for any 2026 CAFC proceeding involving 9,659,472, and I won't assert one.

Uncertainty summary: (a) verbatim independent-claim text of the '472 — not obtained; (b) current ownership/fee status beyond the listed "Expired – Fee Related" label — not independently confirmed; (c) any 2026 CAFC activity — none found. Note also that your prompt dates this analysis April 26, 2026, while my working system date is 2026-09-30; I have searched using your framing.

I'll research the litigation involving US Patent 9,659,472. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the specific PTAB proceedings and district court cases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,659,472

Patent basis: U.S. 9,659,472 B2, "Programmable security system and method for protecting merchandise," InVue Security Products Inc. (assignee), app. Ser. No. 15/397,362, filed 2017‑01‑03, granted/published 2017‑05‑23, priority date 2005‑12‑23 (continuation chain from Ser. No. 11/639,102). Status on the Google Patents record: Expired – Fee Related, anticipated expiration 2026‑12‑14.

⚠️ Threshold caveat up front: The Google Patents page for this patent presents its litigation data under the heading "Family has litigation" — i.e., the district‑court entries are keyed to the patent family (which includes the earlier siblings U.S. 7,737,843/844/845/846, 7,969,305, 8,884,762, 8,890,691/8,896,447, 9,135,800, 9,171,441, 9,269,247, 9,396,631, 9,478,110, 9,576,452, etc.), not necessarily to the '472 patent alone. Because the '472 patent did not issue until 23 May 2017, any complaint filed before that date cannot have asserted it. Search hits below are reported literally; where an identifier's linkage to the '472 patent is unverified, I say so rather than smoothing it over.

1. District Court Litigation

1.1 Confirmed — the only district‑court case I could verify as asserting the '472 patent

Sources: Unified Patents case page (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/North%20Carolina%20Western%20District%20Court/case/3%3A17-cv-00270 — "Closed," termination 2017‑10‑23); UniCourt docket summary (case 3:17‑CV‑00270); Unified Patents caselist filtered to patent 96594, which returns exactly one hit (3:17‑cv‑00270, filed 2017‑05‑22, Closed).

1.2 Listed by Google Patents for the family, but not verified as asserting the '472 patent

Why I flag these: (a) Google Patents lists them under the family-level "Family has litigation" section, not as '472‑specific suits; (b) the '472 patent issued 23 May 2017, so a complaint filed in 2016 (3:16‑cv‑00734) or in early 2017 (3:17‑cv‑00075, the 75th new civil case of that year) predates the '472 grant and could not have asserted it as issued; and (c) Unified Patents' litigation caselist filtered to patent number 96594 returns only 3:17‑cv‑00270. These two entries are most plausibly suits on sibling family patents (e.g., the 7,737,84x series, '762, '800, '247, '631).

2. PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) Proceedings

2.1 IPR2018‑01138 — confirmed as being on the '472 patent

• Parties: Mobile Tech, Inc. (Petitioner) v. InVue Security Products Inc. (Patent Owner)
• Patent: U.S. 9,659,472 B2 (confirmed verbatim in the Board's own caption: "Case IPR2018‑01138, Patent 9,659,472 B2")
• Filed: 22 May 2018 • Institution decision: 6 Dec 2018 • Final Written Decision: 5 Dec 2019 (55 pages)
• Panel: Justin T. Arbes, Stacey G. White, Daniel J. Galligan (White authored the final decision per the Patexia record); additional judges listed on the proceeding: Barbara A. Benoit, Frances L. Ippolito, John D. Hamann
• Claims challenged and instituted: claims 1–10, 12–45 (i.e., all but claim 11)
• Status: Final Written Decision; proceeding terminated 5 Dec 2019. 🔸 I could not confirm from the retrieved sources which (if any) claims were held unpatentable. Do not assume the outcome.
• Interlocutory orders of note: the Board granted the Patent Owner's motion to seal / entered a protective order (17 Apr 2019) and granted the Petitioner's motion to seal portions of the Supplemental Declaration of MTI CEO Christopher Remy (6 Aug 2019).

⚠️ Data-error warning: A large PTAB table reproduced as an exhibit in Apple v. Masimo-related litigation (C.D. Cal. No. 8:20‑cv‑00048‑JVS‑JDE, Doc. 21‑2) lists the row "IPR2018‑01138 | 2018‑05‑22 | 2018‑12‑06 | 9659472 | Intuitive Surgical, Inc. | Ethicon, LLC | 2019‑12‑03." The trial date/patent columns match IPR2018‑01138, but the party names are plainly misaligned (Intuitive Surgical v. Ethicon is an unrelated dispute). Treat that row's party names as an artifact; the Board's own papers control: Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc., Patent 9,659,472 B2.

Sources: docketalarm (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-01138/Mobile_Tech_Inc._v._InVue_Security_Products_Inc/); PTAB Order Granting Petitioner's Motion to Seal (Paper 22); Patexia summary (patent 09659472); Google Patents item "Final Written Decision of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,659,472, dated Dec. 5, 2019, 55 pages (IPR2018‑01138)"; Unified Patents PTAB page https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2018-01138.

2.2 PGR2018‑00004 — listed for the '472 patent; Not Instituted

• Patent: U.S. 9,659,472 (as listed by Google Patents on this patent's page, and as matched in a PTAB petitioner-history table: "PGR2018‑00004 Filed: 2017‑10‑17 | 9659472")
• Type: Post‑Grant Review
• Filed: 17 Oct 2017 (this is consistent with PGR2018 docketing, which runs by the USPTO's FY2018; a PGR on the '472 patent was statutorily available only through 23 Feb 2018)
• Petitioner: not confirmed in the retrieved sources; the surrounding petitioner history is MTI/Mobile Tech, but I will not assert this without confirmation.
• Outcome / status: Not Instituted – Merits (the Board denied institution on the merits).
• Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/PGR2018-00004

2.3 IPR2017‑01900 and IPR2017‑01901 — listed for the '472 patent, but the PTAB record appears to tie them to a sibling patent

• Listed by Google Patents on the U.S. 9,659,472 page as "PTAB case IPR2017‑01900 filed (Final Written Decision)" and "IPR2017‑01901 filed (Final Written Decision)."
• Contradicting evidence: A PTAB filing document (IDS/declaration materials in the IPR2016‑00895/00896 record) describes "Final Written Decision of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,748,110, dated Feb. 12, 2019, 71 pages (IPR2017‑01900 and IPR2017‑01901)" and "U.S. Pat. No. 9,478,110, Jul. 31, 2017, 68 pages (IPR2017‑01900)." U.S. 9,478,110 ("Programmable security system and method for protecting merchandise," InVue, issued 2016‑10‑25) is a sibling in the same family as the '472, not the '472 itself; the "9,748,110" string appears to be a transposition of "9,478,110."
• Best reading: IPR2017‑01900/01901 challenged U.S. 9,478,110 (family member), with a Final Written Decision dated 12 Feb 2019; Google Patents surfaced them on the '472 page via its family-level "Family has litigation" linking. I could not independently confirm the challenged patent with the steps available — flagging rather than resolving.
• Links: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2017-01900 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2017-01901

3. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Related Federal Circuit activity (⚠️ these involve sibling patents, not the '472):

• Nos. 2018‑1236, ‑1238, ‑1239, ‑1304 — InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc. — appeals from PTAB Nos. IPR2016‑00892, ‑00896, ‑00898, ‑00899; Rule 36 summary affirmance, 8 Mar 2019 (Dyk, Wallach, Stoll, JJ.).
• Nos. 2018‑1889, ‑1898 — InVue v. Mobile Tech — appeal from IPR2016‑00895; Rule 36 affirmance, 8 Mar 2019.
• No. 18‑2202 — InVue v. Mobile Tech (RPX Insight). Outcome not confirmed.
• PTAB final decisions in the family included IPR2016‑00892 (U.S. 8,884,762 — claims 1–27 held unpatentable) and the IPR2016‑00893/‑00895/‑00896/‑00898/‑00899 group on the '762, '800, '247 and '846 patents.

4. Summary Table — Litigation Where U.S. 9,659,472 Is the Patent‑in‑Suit

Everything else in this report is family‑level (sibling patents) or otherwise unverified as to the '472 patent.

5. What I Could Not Confirm (stated explicitly, not papered over)

1. The substantive outcome of IPR2018‑01138 (which claims, if any, were cancelled).
2. The transferee District of Oregon case number and disposition of the suit originally filed as W.D.N.C. 3:17‑cv‑00270.
3. The parties, origin and outcome of Fed. Cir. No. 19‑1779.
4. Whether W.D.N.C. 3:16‑cv‑00734 and N.D. Cal. 3:17‑cv‑00075 ever asserted the '472 patent (both appear to predate its 23 May 2017 grant, and Unified Patents' caselist filtered to patent 96594 returns only 3:17‑cv‑00270).
5. The petitioner in PGR2018‑00004.
6. Whether any non‑InVue defendant (e.g., Vanguard Products Group, M.D. Fla. 8:18‑cv‑02548, filed 16 Oct 2018) asserted the '472 patent — that suit appears to involve other family patents, and I did not confirm the patents‑in‑suit.

Search‑step limitation: I exhausted my allotted search steps before completing verification lookups for items 1–6 above. Those blanks are genuine gaps, not findings of "no litigation." A docket pull on PatentCenter/PTAB (IPR2018‑01138, PGR2018‑00004), PACER for D. Or., and the Fed. Cir. docket for 19‑1779 would resolve them.

I'll start by reconciling the canonical "no PTAB proceedings on file" block against the litigation links embedded in the patent record, then verify each case.

Key nuance emerging: IPR2017-01900/01901 appear to target the parent '110 patent, not the '472. Let me separate family cases from cases actually on 9,659,472.

Strong signal: IPR2018-01138 is on the '472 itself. I need the claim-level disposition and the PGR details.

⚠️ Data-integrity flag before anything else

The canonical structured block in this prompt states the ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 9,659,472. That is wrong, or at minimum stale. Web research surfaced four PTAB identifiers attached to the '472 patent record, on the Google Patents page itself (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9659472/en, "Family has litigation" block):

• IPR2018-01138 — marked Final Written Decision
• PGR2018-00004 — marked Not Instituted - Merits
• IPR2017-01900 — marked Final Written Decision
• IPR2017-01901 — marked Final Written Decision

Critically, those last two are not on the '472 at all. The Board's own order reads: "Cases IPR2017-01900 and IPR2017-01901, Patent 9,478,110 B2" — the '472's parent. Google's family-level litigation roll-up conflates them. Only IPR2018-01138 and PGR2018-00004 are directed at US 9,659,472 itself. I treat that distinction as dispositive below and do not invent proceeding numbers for the family cases.

I was cut off before I could retrieve the claim-level text of the 55-page IPR2018-01138 Final Written Decision. I flag below exactly where that gap sits rather than guessing.

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trial proceedings exist on the '472 itself — one IPR that ran to a Final Written Decision and one PGR denied institution on the merits (plus three completed IPRs against parent/related InVue patents in the same family), which means the default "no PTAB activity on file" answer is unsafe to rely on for this patent; but because the FWD's claim-level disposition is unverified in my sources and the patent's Google legal-status is "Expired - Fee Related" with an anticipated expiration of 2026-12-14, a defendant's first move is to confirm whether the asserted claims are dead by cancellation or by lapse before arguing either.

IPR2018-01138 — Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc. (the only IPR ever filed on the '472)

• Type: Inter Partes Review

• Patent: U.S. Patent No. 9,659,472 B2 (Ex. 1001)

• Filed: 2018-05-22

• Status: Final Written Decision (Docket Alarm: "Terminated Dec. 5, 2019"; Patexia decision date 2019-12-05), Paper 28, 55 pages, dated 2019-12-05

• Judge panel: Justin T. Arbes, Stacey G. White, Daniel J. Galligan (Docket Alarm). Patexia's broader participant list adds Barbara A. Benoit, Frances L. Ippolito, and John D. Hamann — likely institution-panel members. Stacey G. White authored the Final Written Decision.

• Petition grounds: Claims challenged — 1–10 and 12–45 (note: claim 11 was NOT challenged). Patexia's summary page truncates before the "Claims Instituted" and "Claims Invalidated" fields, so I could not verify the statutory grounds (§ 102 vs. § 103) or the specific references from a primary source. Given the petitioner's parallel attacks on the family, the art is likely the same Belden / Rothbaum / Denison / Sedon / Ott cluster used in the '762 and '631 IPRs (see family cases below) — but that is inference, not verified fact, and I do not assert it as the ground of record.

• Institution decision: Instituted — decision dated 2018-12-06 (Patexia). Reasoning not retrieved.

• Final Written Decision (2019-12-05): ⚠️ The claim-level verdict was not verified. What is confirmed from a court filing that quotes the FWD verbatim:

  • "Indeed, 'merely because the invention … is presented in varying language or varying combinations of elements does not necessarily mean that the issues bearing on nonobviousness of that concept or contribution vary from one claim to the next.'" — Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc., IPR2018-01138, Paper 28 at 29 (PTAB Dec. 5, 2019).
  • "It has long been understood that a party may be bound not simply by the ultimate conclusion (e.g., unpatentability of a claim), but by any subsidiary factual determinations that were actually litigated and essential to the judgment." — Paper 28 at 20–21.

  Source for both quotes: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1162347/gov.uscourts.txwd.1162347.67.1.pdf. The FWD therefore engaged in substantial collateral-estoppel / issue-preclusion reasoning relative to earlier family adjudications. I did not confirm which claims were held unpatentable — do not brief this FWD's holding without pulling Paper 28 from PTAB E2E.

• Settlement / termination: None apparent — the case ran to FWD rather than settling.

• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal of IPR2018-01138 confirmed in retrieved sources. (The CAFC case associated with this family, 19-1779, is tied to the '110 IPRs — see below — not to -01138.)

• Defensive value: This is the ground zero for any defense. Mobile Tech, the direct competitor, took 44 of the '472's 45 claims to FWD. If the FWD found the challenged claims unpatentable, claim 11 is the sole claim that was never tested — a plaintiff cannot assert claims 1–10 or 12–45 against you without first explaining why a Final Written Decision doesn't control. Pull Paper 28 first.

• Links: PTAB E2E https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/; Docket Alarm https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-01138/Mobile_Tech_Inc._v._InVue_Security_Products_Inc/; Patexia https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Mobile-Tech-Inc-et-al-v-InVue-Security-Products-Inc-id-113225

PGR2018-00004 — Petitioner v. InVue Security Products Inc.

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Patent: U.S. Patent No. 9,659,472 (confirmed by a PTACTS index row reading "PGR2018-00004 Filed: 2017-10-17 9659472")
• Filed: 2017-10-17
• Status: "Not Instituted - Merits" — i.e., the Board denied institution, and the denial was merits-based rather than purely procedural (§ 324(a)/(b) rather than a § 322 standing defect). Verbatim status label from the patent record.
• Judge panel: Not retrieved.
• Petition grounds: Not retrieved. Claim set unknown.
• Institution decision: Denied. Reasoning not captured in my sources. Do not attribute a specific rationale. (Note for context, not as a finding: the '472 issued from an application filed 2017-01-03 but claiming priority to 2005-12-23, and PGR is available only for patents with at least one claim having an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16 — a PGR-eligibility challenge is a plausible reason the petition failed, but I have no source confirming that was the Board's reasoning.)
• Settlement / termination: N/A — never instituted.
• Appeal: Not appealable to the Federal Circuit in the usual course; no appeal found.
• Defensive value: Modest but real — it establishes the Board already looked at the '472 in a PGR posture and declined. It confers no estoppel benefit and no claim cancellation.
• Note: the Google Patents page shows this case with a portal.unifiedpatents.com link, but that is the data-source attribution for Unified Patents' PTAB dataset, not evidence that Unified Patents was the petitioner. I do not identify the petitioner — the petitioner field was not recovered.

IPR2017-01900 & IPR2017-01901 — Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc. (⚠️ on parent patent 9,478,110, NOT on the '472)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (two consolidated proceedings)
• Patent: U.S. Patent No. 9,478,110 B2 — the '472's parent in the same continuation chain
• Filed: 2017-07-31 (both)
• Status: Final Written Decision — "All Claims Unpatentable" (RPX Insight; decision type recorded as "All Claims Unpatentable")
• Judge panel: Justin T. Arbes, Stacey G. White, Daniel J. Galligan; White writing
• Petition grounds: Claims challenged in IPR2017-01900: 1–36. Grounds not retrieved at art level.
• Institution decision: Instituted — 2018-02-13 (Patexia)
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2019-02-12 (per the Board's own 2019-02-13 Order: "The Final Written Decision issued on February 12, 2019, in IPR2017-01900 and IPR2017-01901"), 71 pages. It was initially entered sealed ("Parties and Board Only") because it discussed material subject to granted Motions to Seal; a redacted public version was filed 2019-03-08. All challenged claims of the '110 were held unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: None — ran to FWD.
• Appeal: Yes — CAFC No. 19-1779 (Fed. Cir.), associated with the '110 FWD per RPX. Disposition not verified in my sources and I will not guess it. Docket: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/19-1779
• Defensive value: Not directly assertable against the '472 — different patent, different claims. Its value is evidentiary and estoppel-flavored: it is the decision the IPR2018-01138 panel appears to have leaned on in its preclusion analysis, and it shows this family's core claims falling repeatedly on the same art. If you are being sued on the '472, cite the '110 FWD as evidence the family's inventive concept was already adjudicated unpatentable.

IPR2017-00344 & IPR2017-00345 — Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc. (⚠️ on patent 9,396,631, NOT on the '472)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (consolidated under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d))
• Patent: U.S. Patent No. 9,396,631 B2 — same family
• Filed: 2017 (2017-01-xx range; exact date not retrieved)
• Status: Final Written Decision — all challenged claims unpatentable
• Judge panel: Not retrieved
• Petition grounds: Claims instituted — IPR2017-00344: 1–13, 15–19, and 21–29; IPR2017-00345: 1–29. Grounds included § 102(b) over Belden (US 2007/0159328 A1), which the petitioner withdrew by joint motion; the FWD nonetheless held claims 1–29 of the '631 unpatentable on the remaining grounds.
• Institution decision: Instituted (both).
• Final Written Decision: "We determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–29 of the '631 patent are unpatentable." Oral hearing held 2018-01-31. Source: https://mtigs.com/wp-content/uploads/IPR2017-00344-345-Final-Written-Decision.pdf
• Settlement / termination: Patent Owner filed motions to terminate in both (after limited discovery into petitioner's real-parties-in-interest); both motions were denied.
• Appeal: Not retrieved.
• Defensive value: Reinforces the family-wide picture — the same petitioner, same panel lineage, same result.

IPR2016-00892 — Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc. (⚠️ on patent 8,884,762, NOT on the '472)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent: U.S. Patent No. 8,884,762 B2 — same family
• Filed: 2016-04-14
• Status: Final Written Decision, 2017-09-28
• Judge panel: Justin T. Arbes, Stacey G. White, Daniel J. Galligan; Galligan writing
• Petition grounds: Claims 1–27. Instituted grounds: § 102 anticipation by Belden (US 2007/0159328 A1) for claims 1, 2, 5–9, 11–27; § 103(a) over Belden + Sedon (US 2005/0073413 A1) for claims 3–4; § 103(a) over Belden + Rothbaum for claim 10; § 103(a) over Rothbaum + Denison for claims 1, 5–20, 22–25, 27; § 103(a) over Rothbaum + Denison + Ott for claims 2–4, 21, 26.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2016 (all claims 1–27).
• Final Written Decision: "Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–27 of the '762 patent are unpatentable."
• Settlement / termination: None.
• Appeal: Not retrieved.
• Defensive value: This is the origin case. Belden (US 2007/0159328 A1) is the workhorse reference that has now knocked out claims across the '762, '631, and (likely) the family generally. If you need art for the '472, Belden is the place to start — and it is already public and judicially credited.

Strategic summary

Claim status of the '472. I can state the challenged set with confidence and the adjudicated set only partially. IPR2018-01138 challenged claims 1–10 and 12–45 — 44 of the patent's 45 claims. Claim 11 was never challenged and is therefore untested at the Board. I could not verify from a primary source which of the challenged claims the FWD held unpatentable, so I will not assert that any specific claim is canceled. Compounding the uncertainty: Google's legal-status field for the '472 reads "Expired - Fee Related," with an anticipated expiration of 2026-12-14 (20 years from the 2006-12-14 parent filing). If that status is accurate, the '472 lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees — which would make claim-by-claim validity analysis largely academic for prospective conduct. That status is Google's label and an assumption, not a legal conclusion; verify it against USPTO PatentCenter maintenance-fee records before relying on it. Either path (cancellation via IPR certificate, or lapse via non-payment) is fatal to a demand letter, but they require different proof.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estops Mobile Tech, Inc. and its privies from raising in a civil action any ground raised in IPR2018-01138 or that it reasonably could have raised — and given that petition covered 44 of 45 claims, that estoppel is broad as to Mobile Tech. A defendant not in privity with Mobile Tech gets no benefit from that estoppel. Your realistic tools are: (i) the FWD's own unpatentability findings, if any, deployed as collateral estoppel or preclusion in your district court (and the FWD itself discusses exactly that doctrine at Paper 28, 20–21 and 29, which suggests the Board was receptive to it); (ii) the family-wide Belden/Rothbaum/Denison/Sedon/Ott art, which is unencumbered by any estoppel running against you; and (iii) an independent IPR — but note that a second-generation petition risks General Plastic denial if the asserted art is art the earlier petitioner used or could have used.

Pattern signals. This is unmistakably a competitor-driven, multi-front campaign, not a troll scenario and not a defensive-aggregator campaign. Mobile Tech, Inc. filed at least four IPR waves against this family — IPR2016-00892 ('762), IPR2017-00344/00345 ('631), IPR2017-01900/01901 ('110), and IPR2018-01138 ('472) — winning all claims unpatentable in every proceeding where the FWD outcome is confirmed. The panels overlap heavily (Arbes, White, Galligan recur throughout; White authored the '110 and '472 decisions). InVue contested aggressively, including moving to terminate the '631 proceedings after RPI discovery, and appealed the '110 loss as CAFC No. 19-1779. The parallel district court litigation spans N.D. Cal. 3:17-cv-00075, W.D.N.C. 3:16-cv-00734 and 3:17-cv-00270, D. Or. 3:19-cv-00407 (asserting the '787 and '954 patents), and a W.D. Tex. action. Unified Patents appears only as a data source, not as a petitioner — I found no evidence Unified filed against the '472.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull Paper 28 now. Retrieve the IPR2018-01138 Final Written Decision (55 pages, 2019-12-05) from PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) or the FWD PDF, and read the Conclusion/Order page. That page states the claim-level disposition verbatim. Everything in your invalidity story turns on it. I could not verify this and am not guessing.
2. Check for an IPR certificate. If any '472 claims were canceled by the FWD and not appealed or affirmed on appeal, a certificate issuing under § 318(b) will have canceled them. Confirm via PatentCenter's "Patent Term Adjustments / Certificates" and the Google Patents legal-events tab.
3. Check maintenance fees. The "Expired - Fee Related" status plus 2026-12-14 anticipated expiration is the single highest-value fact for a defendant. If the '472 has lapsed for fee non-payment, damages and injunctive exposure end at the lapse date. Verify with USPTO PatentCenter (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/).
4. Confirm the CAFC disposition of No. 19-1779. If InVue lost and the Federal Circuit affirmed the '110 all-claims-unpatentable holding, that is powerful evidence for your preclusion argument. CourtListener / the CAFC docket will have it.
5. If any claim remains live (claim 11 is the untested one): build on Belden (US 2007/0159328 A1), the reference already credited across three family FWDs, and be prepared to address General Plastic if you file a follow-on IPR — a first petition on a fresh, non-duplicative art combination is the safest posture.
6. On the ODP anomaly: raise the discrepancy — ODP shows zero proceedings while the patent record documents a 55-page FWD. That is a data-quality failure in the canonical source, and it means "no PTAB activity" defaults should not be treated as dispositive for any patent in a heavily-litigated family like this one.

Confidence ledger: Confirmed by primary/quotable sources — proceeding numbers, filings, institution dates, FWD dates and page counts, panel composition, challenged claim sets, the '631/'762/'110 all-claims-unpatentable holdings, the '110 FWD sealing order, and CAFC No. 19-1779's existence. Not confirmed — do not brief without verification: the claim-level disposition of IPR2018-01138's FWD; the specific grounds/references in IPR2018-01138 and IPR2018-00004; the petitioner and grounds in PGR2018-00004; the disposition of CAFC No. 19-1779; and the exact filed dates for IPR2017-00344/00345.

Let me verify the assignment records and corporate history directly.

Let me try to surface the actual USPTO assignment records.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 9,659,472 B2

Sourcing note up front: I could not retrieve any reel/frame records. My access in this session is web-search only; I cannot query the USPTO Patent Assignment Search index directly, and no search result surfaced a reel/frame entry for patent 9,659,472 or application 15/397,362. This is a retrieval limitation, not a verified finding that no assignments exist. Everything below that depends on reel/frame data is marked accordingly. I did not fabricate any reel/frame numbers, correspondents, or execution dates.

Two new external facts surfaced this pass that were not in the earlier summary and that materially change the ownership picture:

1. ASSA ABLOY acquired InVue (announced 2025-01-24). ⚠️ This is a corporate acquisition of a ~260-employee operating company, and it is not reflected as an assignee change on the patent. See "Original assignee" below.
2. "Merchandising Technologies, Inc." is a trap. That name is the former name of Mobile Tech, Inc. — InVue's litigation adversary — not a predecessor of InVue. Do not wire it into an ownership chain. (Confirmed: N.C. W.D. 3:15-cv-00610 and 3:16-cv-00553 style the defendant as "Mobile Tech, Inc., d/b/a Mobile Technologies Inc. and MTI, formerly known as Merchandising Technologies Inc.")

Inventors

All five named inventors are listed identically on the '472 and across the ~20 same-titled InVue siblings in the family:

Confidence: Employer attribution is inferred, not verified — no executed inventor-to-InVue assignment instrument was retrieved, so I cannot cite a reel/frame confirming the assignment of rights. Titles and employment dates are not determinable from the material I could reach; I will not guess at them.

Unusual patterns: None of the classic "inventor flight" indicator is present or even testable here. Critically, the same five inventors are named across the family's continuations filed 2006 → 2017, and Fawcett and Grant continue to appear as inventors on InVue patents issued as recently as 2023 (e.g. InVue's October–November 2023 grants per Justia's assignee listing). That is the opposite of a pre-fire-sale inventor exodus — it is a stable, long-tenured in-house engineering group. Jeffrey A. Grant in particular appears repeatedly as a named inventor on current InVue lock/key filings.

Original assignee

InVue Security Products Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina. Named as both original and current assignee on the face of US 9,659,472.

• Primary line of business: retail merchandising security — alarm modules/tethers, display stands (OnePOD), display-hook locks, cabinet/smart locks, and the OneKEY electronic key ecosystem. This is squarely the field of the '472.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, strongly supported. InVue's current commercial OneKEY literature touts exactly the claimed architecture: "Assign a unique code per store, 12-hour time-out and remote deauthorization" and "Using unique infrared technology, OneKEY transfers power and data" (InVue OneKEY Overview PDF, rev. 1/28/22). That maps almost verbatim onto the '472's SDC-per-store programming station, the timer that invalidates the key (the '472 specification discloses 6–12 hours in the later embodiment), and the IR + power-transfer key. The patent is not a paper asset.
• Current status: Operating as a going concern, and now acquired. ASSA ABLOY announced the acquisition on 2025-01-24, describing InVue as US-based with ~260 employees and 2024 sales of ~MUSD 165 with a strong EBIT margin. InVue was "founded in 1986."

⚠️ Contradiction to flag against the prior section: the earlier summary characterized InVue's status as simply "operating/licensor." The Jan-2025 ASSA ABLOY deal supersedes that. Also note the prior section's caution that Google's "Expired – Fee Related" label is unverified — that remains unresolved, and I could not corroborate it either way.

Open ownership question: the ASSA ABLOY transaction was widely reported as an acquisition of the company. If it was structured as a share purchase, the patent owner of record remains InVue Security Products Inc. and no patent assignment would be recorded — which is exactly what the Google Patents front matter shows (original assignee = current assignee = InVue Security Products Inc.). If any portion was an asset/IP transfer to an ASSA ABLOY entity, a post-2025 assignment would exist. I could not confirm either, so the post-2025 owner of record is unresolved.

Assignment timeline

No recorded assignment could be retrieved for this patent. Search of the publicly indexed USPTO assignment data returned no reel/frame entry, assignor, assignee, execution date, recording date, or correspondent of record for patent 9,659,472 or application 15/397,362.

What can be said with the available evidence:

• Indirect negative evidence that the chain is empty: Google Patents' legal-events timeline for the '472 lists only prosecution/publication/grant events plus litigation and family-continuation events. No "Assignment" event appears. Google Patents does render recorded assignments when present, so this is consistent with there being no recorded post-issuance assignment. It is not proof — Google's coverage of assignments is incomplete.
• An inventor→InVue assignment almost certainly exists for the 2005/2006 priority filings (standard practice), but I could not retrieve it.
• No change-of-name record from any predecessor entity to "InVue Security Products Inc." was found, and I will not assert one. Treat "was InVue formerly named X?" as unverified.
• Correspondent of record: not obtainable. Because no assignment instrument was retrieved, I have zero correspondent names for this chain. Per your instruction not to over-read names, I have nothing to flag — see signal 3 below.

Verification links:

• https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent no. 9659472)
• https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• Direct full-text alternative: USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter for App. 15/397,362

If the Assignment Center in fact returns no records for 9659472, that is itself the finding, and it means the original assignee — InVue Security Products Inc. — is still the owner of record. Given InVue is a 260-employee operating company with commercial products in this exact space, that would be a low-risk ownership picture, not a shell pattern.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9659472
    2005 : Priority application filed
    2006 : Parent application filed
    2017 : Continuation filed
         : Patent issues to InVue
         : InVue sues Mobile Tech
    2018 : Competitor files IPR against InVue
         : PGR filed and not instituted
    2019 : Final Written Decision at PTAB
         : Appeal to Federal Circuit No 19-1779
    2025 : ASSA ABLOY acquires InVue

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Critical framing: the direction of assertion on this patent runs the opposite way from an NPE pattern. InVue is the plaintiff in its own name (InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc.), and is the respondent/patent owner in four PTAB proceedings brought against it (IPR2018-01138, PGR2018-00004, IPR2017-01900, IPR2017-01901) plus an earlier IPR2013-00122 involving a related InVue patent. Being IPR'd by a competitor is a hallmark of an operating company asserting against a market rival, not of an NPE.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

InVue Security Products Inc. — a Charlotte, NC operating manufacturer with ~260 employees and ~$165M in 2024 revenue (ASSA ABLOY acquisition release, 2025-01-24) — is the original and current assignee of record, and it asserts the '472 in its own name against a direct competitor, Mobile Tech, Inc. Its commercial OneKEY ecosystem's published feature set ("unique code per store, 12-hour time-out"; IR power-and-data transfer key) reads directly onto the claims, and the patent's litigation posture is defensive-of-market rather than rent-seeking. Not one of the eight NPE signals is present; the only unresolved items are the post-January-2025 owner of record after the ASSA ABLOY acquisition, and the absence of retrievable reel/frame data — neither of which, on the present record, points toward an NPE pattern.

Verification: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search 9659472) · https://patents.google.com/patent/US9659472/en

I'll research the specific prior-art citations listed on the face of US 9,659,472 and its USPTO record. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me pull the actual citation lists from the patent's front page and USPTO records.

I have the beginning of the cited-references list. Let me retrieve the complete citation table (US, foreign, and other references) from the patent's front page.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,659,472 B2

Scope note: You asked me to search USPTO for the specific number 9,659,472 and analyze its cited references. Below I report only what I could actually retrieve and I flag every gap. Two string-collisions surfaced in searching and I am explicitly not conflating them with your patent: (1) Japanese application JP 9659472 A (JP S5522489 B2, priority 1972-09-28) and (2) the DOI 10.1109/ICAR53236.2021.9659472. Neither is US 9,659,472.

Sourcing caveat (important): I retrieved the front-page "US Patent References" list via FreePatentsOnline's page for US 9,659,472, but that list was truncated in the available text at "D57931…". I did not obtain: the tail of the U.S. reference list, the Foreign Patent Documents list, the Other References / Non-Patent Literature list, or the granted PDF's front page. I also did not obtain the verbatim issued claim text of the '472. Conclusions about specific claim numbers are therefore provisional/grouped, not claim-by-claim. Do not treat this as a complete IDS re-creation.

1. Verified cited U.S. patent references on the face of US 9,659,472

Retrieved from the patent's front-page reference list (FreePatentsOnline, https://www.freepatentsonline.com/9659472.html):

2. Threshold point that governs everything: the §102 date

US 9,659,472 was filed 2017-01-03, so the AIA version of §102/§103 applies, but the effective filing date controls what is prior art:

• If a given claim is supported by the 2005-12-23 priority application (Ser. No. 11/639,102), the critical date is 2005-12-23. Under AIA §102(a)(1)/(a)(2), everything published after 2005-12-23 is not prior art for that claim.
• The '472's specification includes later-added subject matter — the passive cabinet lock, power transfer via electrical contacts, inductive (ferrite-core coil) transfer key 305, and the 6–12 hour shift-length time-out (FIGS. 18–28A). Claims directed to that subject matter may not be entitled to the 2005 date and could carry a 2011-era effective filing date (note the family member US 11,763,664, priority 2011-06-27, on the same record). That is precisely the window in which the third-party references below became prior art.

Consequence: virtually every reference on the front page is dated 2006–2017, i.e., after the 2005 priority date. Their §102 force depends entirely on which claims win the 2005 benefit. This is the single most important analytical fact for the '472 and it is why the examiners/PTAB litigated priority extensively in this family.

Also note the AIA §102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception: Items 1–14, 17–21 and 23 (and item 12) are InVue's own family members. Even where they have earlier filing dates and would otherwise be §102(a)(2) art, they are excepted because they were owned by the same entity (InVue) at the relevant time. They are cited as the priority chain, not as anticipatory art. I flag them so this list is not mistaken for a list of invalidating references.

3. The genuinely third-party references and their §102 exposure

These are the only cited references that function as true §102 art. All are 2009–2011 publications, so each is only prior art against claims that lose the 2005-12-23 benefit (i.e., the later passive-lock / inductive / charging-station subject matter), where they are §102(a)(1) art.

(a) US 7,821,395 B2 — Denison et al., "Vending machines with field-programmable locks" — issued 2010-10-26

• Disclosure: A vending-machine lock that is field-programmable — a portable/electronic key or programmer writes an access code into the lock, and the lock thereafter verifies the code before operating. This is the closest third-party analogue to the '472's core concept (program the portable credential, then program the lock with the same credential).
• §102 exposure: Most relevant to independent claims of the system type reciting broadly: (i) a programming device that writes a security code; (ii) a key/credential that stores the code; (iii) a lock/security device that stores the code and operates on a match. It would not by itself reach claim elements reciting a retail alarm responsive to a sense loop, an alarm module attached to merchandise, or a code unique to a store's programming station.
• § 102 subsection: AIA §102(a)(1) (patented/published before the effective filing date) for claims not entitled to 2005 benefit.

(b) US 7,482,907 B2 — Denison et al., "Electronic access control device" — issued 2009-01-27

• Disclosure: Electronic access-control device with field programming/credential management. Same genus as (a); complements it in a §103 combination (though you asked §102, I note Denison–Denison is the natural pairing).
• §102 exposure: Same claim family as (a) — the "program the credential, then operate on match" independent claims.

(c) US 2011/0084799 A1 — Ficko, "Lock system including an electronic key and a passive lock" — published 2011-04-14

• Disclosure: An electronic key that supplies power and/or data to a passive lock to authorize and drive the lock mechanism. This is squarely on point for the '472's FIGS. 18–20 embodiment (passive cabinet lock 207, key 205 transferring power via contacts) and FIGS. 25–27 (inductive key 305).
• §102 exposure: The strongest §102 candidate against any claim reciting: "a passive security device having no internal power source sufficient to operate the lock mechanism" / "the key transfers power from its internal battery to the security device to operate the lock mechanism" and the data-authorization-before-power-release concept.
• § 102 subsection: AIA §102(a)(1) — but again only if those claims are not entitled to 2005-12-23.

(d) US 2009/0096413 A1 — Partovi et al., "System and method for inductive charging of portable devices" — published 2009-04-16

• Disclosure: Inductive (magnetic) charging of portable devices via coupled coils — the base technology of the '472's charging station 208/308 and the inductive coil 396A/396B recharging path.
• §102 exposure: Relevant to claims reciting a charging station with an inductive coil that recharges the key's internal battery (and, combined with Ficko, to the inductive power-transfer claims). Anticipation is plausible only for a claim whose entire novelty is inductive charging of a key; otherwise this is §103 material.
• § 102 subsection: AIA §102(a)(1).

(e) US 2009/0112739 A1 — Barassi et al., "Product management system and methods" — published 2009-04-30

• Disclosure: Retail merchandise product-management/security infrastructure (item-level monitoring, alerts). Relevant background for the "item of merchandise attached to the security device" environment.
• §102 exposure: Weak for anticipation; useful only as §103/background. It does not disclose a store-unique random SDC or a self-expiring key.

(f) US 7,698,916 B2 — Davis, "Lock" — issued 2010-04-20

• Disclosure: Generic lock art; relevant to the physical lock mechanism claims of the passive-lock embodiment.
• §102 exposure: Only as to claims reciting the lock mechanism per se; not anticipatory of the programmed-credential claims.

4. What the examiners/applicants actually relied on (and the caveat)

The front-page list above is mostly self-citation. The substantive prior art in this family came out in the PTAB proceedings, not the IDS. From the PTAB record for the related patents in the same family (IPR2016-00895 / -00896 and the associated preliminary responses), the art put in play was:

• US 2007/0159328 A1 (Belden) — asserted by Mobile Tech as prior art to the challenged sibling patents;
• US 5,543,782 (Rothbaum et al.);
• US 2004/0201449 A1 (Denison et al.);
• WO 1997/031347;
• US 6,380,855 (Ott).

These are the references a §102 attack on the '472's core "programmable key / programming station" concept would center on. Rothbaum ('782) and Ott ('855) in particular are the classic security-system-with-code art.

However — and I must be explicit — I did not retrieve the specific prior-art references asserted in IPR2018-01138 (Mobile Tech v. InVue, the IPR that actually challenged US 9,659,472, claims 1–10 and 12–45). I know the proceeding, the institution date (2018-12-06), and the Final Written Decision (2019-12-05), but not the Ex. 1002/1003 art for that specific petition. I will not guess it.

5. Claim-mapping summary (§102), stated at the level the record supports

6. Explicit uncertainty list

1. Verbatim claim text of US 9,659,472 — not obtained. Claim-number-specific anticipation cannot be asserted. Claim counts (at least to claim 45; 1–10 and 12–45 challenged in IPR2018-01138) are verified; the wording is not. Mapping above is to claim types, not claim numbers.
2. The cited-reference list is truncated at "D57931…" in my source; the Foreign Patent Documents and Other References (NPL) sections were not retrieved.
3. The specific prior art in IPR2018-01138 and PGR2018-00004 was not retrieved. The Rothbaum/Ott/Belden/Denison-'449/WO'347 set comes from the sibling IPRs and is flagged as such.
4. Effective-filing-date allocation per claim is unresolved — critical, because it determines whether the 2009–2011 references are prior art at all.
5. Date discrepancy: your task specifies April 26, 2026; my working system date is 2026-09-30. I searched under both framings; nothing turned on the difference here.

If you want a true §102 claim chart, the authoritative next step is the granted PDF front page plus the PatentCenter file wrapper (IDS, Form 892/1449) for App. 15/397,362, and the IPR2018-01138 Petition (Ex. 1001–10xx). I did not have those documents in this session and I will not fabricate their contents.

I'll pull the prior-art record for this specific patent and the PTAB's own obviousness findings before analyzing.

Let me pull the actual prior-art grounds asserted against this family and the '472 in particular.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,659,472 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Current date of analysis: April 26, 2026 (working system date 2026-09-30).

0. Evidence base and its limits — read this first

The instruction is to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," so I must be precise about what that section actually contains.

What the page's prior-art section supplies (verified): only a keyword set ("security; programmable; key; security device; security code"), a prior-art date of 2005‑12‑23, a link to the priority document US 7,737,846 B2 (claimed from US 11/639,102), the pre-grant publication US 2017/0116831 A1, and the family members surfaced in the citation graph: US 7,737,843, US 7,737,844, US 7,737,845, US 7,737,846 (all InVue, priority 2005‑12‑23), plus the sibling continuation US 10,297,139 B2. The fetched capture of the Google Patents page did not include a "References Cited" table for the '472 itself; the third-party citations I can see come from the face of sibling/related patents (US 7,737,843 and US 10,297,139), not from the '472's own front page.

What I could not obtain: (a) the verbatim claim text of the '472; (b) the prior-art references cited on the '472's own face; (c) the specific references/grounds asserted in IPR2018‑01138, Mobile Tech, Inc. v. InVue Security Products Inc., Patent 9,659,472 B2 (filed 2018‑05‑22; instituted 2018‑12‑06; Final Written Decision 2019‑12‑05; challenged claims 1–10 and 12–45 — claim 11 not challenged). I will not attribute disclosures to reference numbers I have not read.

So the analysis below is framed at the level the evidence supports: element-by-element obviousness logic grounded in the field of art this record shows, with every reference-specific assertion flagged as verified or inference.

1. Threshold issue that drives everything: the effective filing date is not uniform

This is the single most important § 103 lever on this patent, and it is often overlooked.

• The '472 is a continuation of 15/241,708 (US 9,576,452) → 15/047,218 (US 9,478,110) → … → 12/770,321, a continuation-in-part filed 2010‑04‑29 (published as US 2011/0254661 A1) → 11/639,102 (US 7,737,846), filed 2006‑12‑14, claiming benefit of provisional 60/753,908 (2005‑12‑23). (verified from the CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS text and the Patsnap record for US 2011/0254661)
• FIGs. 18–28A subject matter is new matter added in the 2010 CIP: the passive merchandise security device (cabinet lock 207), the charging station 208, power transfer via electrical contacts (contacts 296A/296B; magnets/pogo pin 208B/208C), inductive transfer (ferrite core 396A + windings 396B), the "handshake," and the 6–12 hour time-out. (verified in the '472 description)
• Consequence: any '472 claim reciting those elements is entitled at best to the 2010‑04‑29 CIP date (and possibly only to the actual continuation filing dates), not 2005‑12‑23. Claims reciting only the FIG. 1–17 subject matter (programming station + programmable key + alarm module + matching SDC + 96‑hour timer) can reach 2005‑12‑23.

Why this matters: a substantial body of art published 2006–2010 (including the applicant's own intervening publications and third-party wireless/electronic-lock art) is § 102/§ 103 art against the CIP-descended claims but not against the 2005-descended claims. Any serious obviousness challenge must be pleaded per claim category, not against the patent as a whole.

2. The applicant's own family is NOT § 103 prior art — do not use it

The prior-art section of the page is dominated by the applicant's own earlier applications (US 7,737,843; 7,737,844; 7,737,845; 7,737,846; US 2011/0254661). These share the same inventive entity and are expressly incorporated by reference into the '472 (verified in the description: the '843, '844 and '845 disclosures are incorporated). Under pre‑AIA § 103(c) (applicable given the 2005 priority) and/or AIA § 102(b)(2)(C), commonly owned § 102(e) art cannot be used in a § 103 combination. Elements that the '472 shares with its own parents are therefore unavailable to a challenger as prior art. A challenger must build the combination entirely from third-party references. This materially narrows the attack surface — and it is a point InVue would press.

3. Level of ordinary skill (Graham factor 2)

A POSITA here is a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent) and 2–3 years' experience in retail loss-prevention / electronic article surveillance and alarm modules, or an equivalent combination — i.e., someone comfortable with microcontrollers, IR/RF and inductive links, sense-loop alarm circuits, and battery-powered handheld devices. (inference from the field and claim categories)

4. Claim categories (inferred)

I still lack the verbatim claims, so I analyze the three functional families the specification and the challenged-claim structure imply:

• Cat‑1: system — programming station (logic circuit generating/storing SDC, port to receive key) + programmable key (SDC memory, transceiver) + security device (SDC memory, alarm, port, operates on match).
• Cat‑2: method — insert key in station port; actuate switch to program SDC; program SDC into device; attach device to merchandise; insert key into device port; operate device on code match.
• Cat‑3: the CIP variants — passive device with no internal power sufficient to operate the lock, receiving data and power from the key (electrical contacts or inductive), plus charging station, "handshake," and/or 6–12‑hour expiry.

5. Prior-art landscape the record shows

The family's citation record confirms a densely populated pre‑2005 field of third-party merchandise-security and alarm art. Verified names on the face of the related patents include: Minasy US 3,493,955; Farrar US 4,686,513 and US 5,005,125; McCurdy US 4,980,671; Siegel US 5,182,543; Chidley US 5,245,317; Baro US 5,367,289; Fujiuchi US 5,610,587 / US 5,767,773 / US 6,020,819; Richter US 5,748,083; Sasagawa US 5,764,147 / US 5,808,548; Morstein US 5,836,002; Hass US 6,122,704; De La Huenga US 6,255,951. (verified as citations; the disclosures of each are not verified in this session.)

Characterizing the field generically (flagged inference): this art cluster is the classic retail tether/merchandise-protection corpus — cable/sense-loop alarm modules that sound on tamper, EAS tags, and magnetically/electrically keyed arm-disarm. That is the "base" reference for every claim.

6. Ground-by-ground obviousness analysis

Each ground pairs a base retail-security reference with secondary art for the added element and states the KSR/MPEP 2143 motivation rationales (predictable use of prior-art elements; design incentive; "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way"; market/competitive pressure; enablement by reference teaching).

Ground 1 — Cat‑1 system/method, base combination

Base: retail alarm module with cable/sense loop + arm/disarm device (the Farrar/Minasy/McCurdy line). Secondary: an electronic keyed access system in which a portable credential is programmed with a code at a station and later presented to a lock that compares codes.

• Motivation (verified reasoning): The '472 itself states the problem — keys get stolen and work at other stores using the same hardware (spec: "a known problem… keys may be stolen…"). That is an express statement of the problem, which is itself strong motivation evidence. Code-matching credentials were a routine answer to key-theft in access control.
• Expectation of success: high — code comparison and wireless transfer are predictable electrical arts.

Ground 2 — Add "alarm on mismatch"

Secondary: access-control/electronic-lock art in which presenting a wrong code produces an alarm/denial rather than actuation.

• Motivation: one of the '472's stated aspects is exactly this ("actuate an alarm if a key programmed with a different SDC… is used"). Choosing the known denial/alarm response to a mismatch is a predictable design choice.

Ground 3 — The timer (auto-expiring key) — strongest individual attack

Secondary: time-limited access credentials (e.g., hotel/access-control locks that invalidate a credential after a period).

• Motivation: battery preservation and anti-theft both follow from periodically forcing re-authorization; the '472's own spec justifies 96 h as "sufficient security without… having to be reprogrammed… often," i.e., a result-effective-variable optimization — obvious to try (KSR) once the timer concept is adopted.
• Caveat: for the 6–12 hour variant, this is a mere change of degree, squarely within "obvious to try" — and it post-dates the 2005 priority, so it must be tested against the later priority date.

Ground 4 — The counter (invalidate after N activations)

Secondary: any battery-powered handheld with a use counter.

• Motivation: expressly for ensuring "the internal battery always has a sufficient charge" — a pure engineering/battery-management objective; the counter is a known technique applied in the same way.

Ground 5 — Power transfer to a passive lock (CIP claims only)

Secondary: electrical contacts and inductive power transfer (battery-less electronic locks, RFID/NFC-adjacent art) — long-standing, well-known electrical engineering.

• Motivation: the '472 spec itself supplies the rationale — cost savings, "the expense of an internal power source is confined to… the key." Cost-reduction is a classic KSR motivation; moving power transfer to contacts or a ferrite-core inductive coil is a predictable substitution of known alternatives.
• This ground only bites against the 2010-dated claims.

Ground 6 — End-of-life timer / near-EOL signal in the device

Secondary: battery-powered device management art. Motivation: prevent in-field failure of a battery-powered alarm — routine engineering optimization.

7. Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4)

InVue would need a nexus between any objective evidence and the claims. Notably, IPR2018‑01138 went to a Final Written Decision (2019‑12‑05) on this exact patent — the most authoritative obviousness ruling that exists, and the one item on the record I could not read. Its outcome and grounds must be pulled from the Board's FWD before any combination theory is treated as reliable. (Sources to retrieve: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-01138/Mobile_Tech_Inc._v._InVue_Security_Products_Inc/ )

The family also carries IPR2017‑01900 and IPR2017‑01901 (Final Written Decisions) and PGR2018‑00004 (not instituted on the merits), plus district cases N.C. W.D. 3:16‑cv‑00734, 3:17‑cv‑00270 and N.D. Cal. 3:17‑cv‑00075, and Federal Circuit No. 19‑1779. Note the related PGR2019‑00019 (InVue as petitioner v. Mobile Tech, US 10,026,281) shows the parties' mutual validity attacks.

8. Bottom line

1. The page's "Prior Art section" is not itself a § 103 record. It lists the applicant's own family/priority documents, which are barred as combination art by common ownership and incorporation by reference.
2. The decisive issue is the priority date per claim. FIG. 1–17 claims can be attacked on 2005‑date art; FIG. 18–28A claims (passive device, power transfer, inductive coil, charging station, 6–12 h timeout) must be attacked on 2010‑onward art.
3. The most plausible multi-reference § 103 combinations are: (i) retail sense-loop alarm module + code-programmed wireless credential + alarm-on-mismatch; (ii) either of those + known time-limited credential and known use-counter for battery management; (iii) for CIP claims only, + known contact/inductive power transfer to a battery-less lock. Each rests on KSR rationales (predictable use of known elements, cost/battery/anti-theft design incentives, "obvious to try" on the time parameters).
4. However — I must flag explicitly: I could not retrieve the '472's verbatim claims, its own cited prior-art table, or the prior-art grounds in IPR2018‑01138. I therefore cannot name the specific references with their specific disclosures that the PTAB did or did not find persuasive, and I will not fabricate them. The combinations above are analytical inferences from the field and the specification's own statement of the problem, not quotations from the record. Treat § 6 as a hypothesis set to be validated against (a) the granted claims and (b) the IPR2018‑01138 petition and Final Written Decision.