US 9800182

I'll verify the patent details against live sources before summarizing.

The litigation search returned nothing. Let me try a couple more targeted queries before summarizing.

US 9,800,182 B2 — Verification Summary

I searched for this exact number (US9800182 / US9800182B2) and excluded lookalikes. Note: a dedicated search for CAFC 2026 docket activity involving this patent returned zero results — I cannot confirm any appellate proceeding, and I flag that as an explicit gap below.

Bibliographic data

The continuation US 10,673,358 lists the inventors with residences Shanghai (CN) for Zhou, Xu, Liu and Qiu, and Yorktown Heights, NY for Kang — consistent with the GE Global Research / Shanghai team on this family. (US10673358 PDF)

Abstract (verbatim)

"An electric drive system includes an energy storage system (ESS), a power conversion system, and an alternating current (AC) traction system. The ESS provides or receives electric power. The ESS includes a first energy storage unit and a second energy storage unit. The power conversion system is electrically coupled to the ESS for converting an input power to an output power. The AC traction system is electrically coupled to the power conversion system for converting the output power of the power conversion system to mechanical torques. The AC traction system includes a first AC drive device and a second AC drive device. An energy management system (EMS) is in electrical communication with the ESS, the AC traction system, and the power conversion system for providing control signals."

Source: Google Patents US9800182B2

Independent claims in plain language

Claim 1 — Electric drive system (apparatus). A drive system with four cooperating parts: (a) an energy storage system containing two storage units; (b) a power conversion system connected to that storage system; (c) an AC traction system that turns electric power into mechanical torque, built from a first and a second AC drive device (each supplying or absorbing its own mechanical torque); and (d) an energy management system that talks to all three of the above and issues control signals. The distinguishing structural feature is the mechanical side: a transmission device is coupled to the first AC drive device, and a power device containing one or more gears is coupled to both the transmission device and the second AC drive device, and the gearing combines the transmission device's torque (the "third mechanical torque") with the second AC drive device's torque into a fourth mechanical torque that is delivered to a load. In other words, the claim is directed at how two motor outputs are geared together into a single load output, with one of the two paths routed through a transmission.

Claim 11 — Energy management method. A control method with these steps: (1) decide, based on a drive-system speed signal, whether to enable the first and/or second AC drive device; (2) enable the ESS, specifically the first and/or second energy storage unit; (3) send power control signals to the power conversion system to steer power-flow paths (receiving/providing input power at the conversion system, and providing/receiving output power there); (4) convert electric power from the ESS into a first mechanical torque via the first AC drive device; (5) split that first mechanical torque into a second and a third mechanical torque; (6) feed the second mechanical torque to the second AC drive device, which converts it back into electric power to charge the second energy storage unit; and (7) supply the third mechanical torque to a load. The commercially notable element is step (6): one motor is used as a generator to top up one specific storage unit while the other motor drives the load.

Claim 18 — Electric drive system (apparatus, broader ESS). A drive system in which the ESS is recited as "a plurality of energy storage units" (rather than exactly two), a power conversion system coupled to it, an AC traction system with a first and a second AC drive device, and a power device coupled to the AC traction system configured for splitting the first mechanical torque into the second mechanical torque and a third mechanical torque, plus an EMS in communication with the ESS, traction system, and conversion system. This is the split-path counterpart to claim 1 and omits the explicit transmission-device and load limitations.

Notable dependent claims

• 2–3: pre-charging switching device between the two storage units, optionally unidirectional.
• 4–6: power conversion system implemented as a single conversion device, as two parallel conversion devices, or as two series-connected conversion devices.
• 7: each AC drive device is a DC/AC inverter feeding an IM and/or an IPM.
• 8–9: the power device also splits the fourth torque; and in the split direction the third torque goes back through the transmission to the first AC drive device for generating power to charge the ESS.
• 10: EMS selectively runs both motors driving the load, or runs the first motor as a driver while the second operates as a generator.
• 12–14: torque-distribution unit producing two torque command signals; distribution via a look-up table of high-efficiency areas from the motors' efficiency maps; changing the operating point through the transmission.
• 15–16: operating-mode determination (normal modes: starting, accelerating, cruising, braking; plus a fault-tolerant mode) with mode-specific enablement rules — e.g., second drive device alone in starting if it can meet P_req, both in accelerating and braking.
• 17: second storage unit as an "assistant" supplying additional power when the first cannot meet the required power.

Ownership chain (as recorded on Google Patents)

GE → GE Intellectual Property Licensing, LLC (assignment of assignor's interest) → Dolby Intellectual Property Licensing, LLC (change of name) → Edison Innovations, LLC → Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC (quitclaim assignment, recorded 2025‑04‑09 in the page listing). I report these literally as displayed; the listing order on the page does not track chronological sequence cleanly, so treat the intermediate dates with caution.

Litigation — explicit uncertainty

• The Google Patents page carries a "Family has litigation" indicator and links a Darts‑IP record (family ID 49765292), which indicates the family has been involved in litigation somewhere. I could not retrieve the parties, venue, or status.
• My targeted searches for "9800182" in combination with litigation / CAFC / 2026 docket terms returned no results. I therefore have no authoritative information on any CAFC 2026 appeal, pending district-court action, or ITC proceeding involving this patent, and I am not going to infer one.
• To obtain verified litigation data you would need a paid docket source (Darts‑IP, LexisNexis CourtLink, PACER/RECAP, or USPTO Assignment/Allegation records), which is outside what I can confirm here.

Key caution

The claims of this patent are mechanically oriented in a way the abstract is not: claim 1 requires a transmission device plus a geared power device combining two torque inputs, and claim 11 requires splitting one motor's torque to charge the second storage unit via the second motor. Anyone assessing infringement or validity should work from the claim text above, not the abstract, which omits the transmission/power-device and torque-splitting limitations entirely.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9800182 specifically.

Let me refine my searches with more targeted queries.

I'm finding litigation by Bunker Hill Technologies (the patent's current assignee). Let me dig deeper to determine which cases specifically assert US9800182.

Summary of Findings: Litigation Involving US Patent 9,800,182

Bottom line: Based on my searches of patent-litigation resources, I was unable to identify any case that specifically asserts US 9,800,182 ("the '182 patent") as an asserted patent. If such litigation exists, it did not surface in the sources I could reach. I want to be explicit about this rather than misattribute a similar-numbered patent to it.

Important distinction (per your strict-ID rule)

The searches returned a cluster of active suits brought by Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC — which the patent record shows as the current assignee of the '182 patent (quitclaim assignment recorded 2026‑04‑09). However, the patents asserted in those suits are family members and other patents, not the '182 patent itself. Since you asked me not to return results for similar numbers, I am flagging these as related context, not as confirmed '182 litigation.

Known Bunker Hill suits found (asserted patent numbers as reported — none of which is 9,800,182):

Note the family linkages: US 10,374,529; 10,291,158; 10,673,358; and 11,374,508 are all continuations claiming priority to the '182 application (US 14/094,086, priority 2012‑12‑03). US 9,914,365 and 10,442,296 are separate patents in the same Bunker Hill portfolio. None of the reported asserted lists includes 9,800,182.

What the patent record itself says about litigation

The Google Patents page for US 9,800,182 carries the flag "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed", with a link to Darts‑IP family 49765292. This indicates that litigation exists somewhere in the '182 patent family, but the page does not state that the '182 patent itself is asserted, and it does not name the case.

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: Bunker Hill Technologies is the current assignee of record and is an active NPE litigant (an entity of Dominion Harbor, per Unified Patents), and it has sued Ford, Toyota, and Nissan in E.D. Tex.
• Low/no confidence that US 9,800,182 itself is asserted: The specific asserted‑patent lists I could retrieve name the continuation and sibling patents, not '182. This may be because the '182 patent was not asserted (common where an NPE asserts narrower continuations instead of the earliest parent), or simply because my sources truncated the lists.
• I could not open PACER, the CAFC docket, or the Darts‑IP family page directly within this session; those are the authoritative places to confirm whether '182 appears in any complaint.

Recommended next steps to confirm definitively

1. Pull the actual complaints for 2:25‑cv‑01133, 2:26‑cv‑00230, and 2:26‑cv‑00231 on PACER/Unified Patents and read the "Asserted Patents" sections — one of these may cite '182 even though the summaries did not.
2. Check the Darts‑IP family 49765292 page (linked from the Google Patents record) for the specific case list tied to the family.
3. Search the USPTO Patent Center / assignment records and Unified Patents litigation portal by patent number 9,800,182 to see if it is a named patent-in-suit.

If you'd like, I can attempt to retrieve the underlying complaint PDFs to confirm whether '182 is listed among the asserted patents.

PTAB / AIA Trial Report — US 9,800,182 B2

Patent: Electric drive system and energy management method
Assignee of record: Bunker Hill Technologies LLC (per Google Patents record; assignment trail below is inconsistent — verify)
Priority: 2012-12-03 · Filed: 2013-12-02 · Granted: 2017-10-24 · Adjusted expiration: 2035-06-30
Report date: 2026-09-29

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,800,182: ZERO. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceeding for this patent as of the most recent ingest — meaning no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM (moot post-SAS/post-Unwired Planet, but the field is empty regardless). The breakdown is therefore: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. My independent web searches (PTAB petition text on ptacts.uspto.gov, Federal Circuit/CourtListener, aggregator dockets) surfaced no petition ever filed against the '182 patent, and I found no PTAB decision, FWD, or appeal citing it.

Bottom-line defensive posture: This is the weaker, not stronger, posture from a defendant's perspective — the patent has never been tested at the Board. Unlike a patent that "survived two IPRs" (which is hardened against art-based attacks), the '182 patent is a blank slate: every ground is available, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone, and the Patent Owner has already demonstrated (via the family-adjacent Toyota petitions below) that it will litigate IPRs rather than fold. Counsel facing a demand letter on the '182 patent should treat an IPR as fully open, not foreclosed.

⚠️ Flag — potential mis-identification risk: the '182 patent is one of several closely related GE continuations (US 10,374,529; US 10,291,158; US 10,673,358; US 11,374,508). A demand letter citing "the '182 patent" may actually be tracking a sibling. Confirm the exact patent number on any chart you are handed.

Proceedings on US 9,800,182

None. There is no proceeding to report. Per the operating rule against fabricating proceeding numbers, I am not populating IPR/PGR/CBM sections for this patent. If a newly filed petition exists that the ODP ingest has not yet picked up, it is not visible in any public docket I searched as of 2026-09-29.

Family-adjacent proceedings (NOT proceedings on the '182 patent) — unverified, flagged for follow-up

These are surfaced as leads only. They are directed at different patent numbers that appear to belong to the same GE electric-drive family as the '182 patent. I could not confirm patent numbers, claims, or outcomes against a primary USPTO source, and two of my sources conflict on status. Do not cite these as fact without pulling the E2E records.

IPR2026-00250 — Toyota Motor Corporation v. Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review · Filed 2026-02-03 · Art Unit 2837 / Tech Center 2800
• Challenged patent per the docket: US 10,549,648 — not the '182 patent
• Petition exhibits: Conlon (US 2009/0176610 A1), Reynolds (US 2014/0100726 A1), Ortmann (US 2013/0012347 A1), declaration of Dr. Mahdi Shahbakhti
• Procedural events shown: Notice filing date accorded (2026-02-12); Petitioner's Sotera stipulation (2026-02-12); Patent Owner Mandatory Notice (2026-02-10); Patent Owner Request for Discretionary Denial (2026-04-08)
• Status conflict: Docket Alarm snapshot shows Pending; GreyB IP Verse (updated 2026-09-08) shows Terminated–Settled. Not reconciled. Source: https://sandbox.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00250/Toyota_Motor_Corporation_v._BUNKER_HILL_TECHNOLOGIES_LLC/

IPR2026-00333 — Toyota Motor Corp. v. Bunker Hill Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review · Filed 2026-04-07 · Challenged claims 1–17
• Challenged patent per the docket: US 11,374,508, titled "Drive System and Electric Drive System for a Vehicle"
• Relief requested: institution and cancellation of claims 1–17
• Status reported by GreyB IP Verse (2026-09-08): Terminated–Settled — unverified
• Source: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00333/doc/1006

Caveat on US 11,374,508: the '182 patent's Google Patents family table lists US 11,374,508 as a continuation in the same family (via application 16/866,028), yet the title reported for '508 differs from the '182 title. One of the two renditions is wrong. Confirm the family relationship directly at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9800182B2](/patent/US9800182B2)/en (Family Applications section) before relying on the Toyota petitions as family-wide Fintiv ammunition.

Strategic summary

Claim status of the '182 patent. All claims 1–19 stand as issued and are UNTESTED at the PTAB. Nothing is canceled, nothing has been sustained after challenge, nothing has been narrowed by a certificate. The claim set breaks into three independent claims — claim 1 (system: dual ESS + dual AC drive devices + transmission + geared power device that combines torques to a load), claim 11 (method: drive-device enablement + split-torque regeneration path to the second storage unit), and claim 18 (system: power device that splits the first mechanical torque into second and third torques). Claim 18 is worth noting for invalidity work-up: it was drafted narrowly around the split-torque power device, and claims 8–9 of the '182 patent recite the mirror-image combining/splitting functionality, so the two independent claims pull in opposite directions.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR has ever been instituted, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists against anyone, and no petitioner is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground. Conversely, there is no prior-IPR record for a defendant to piggyback on — no instituted ground, no claim-construction ruling, no expert testimony you can adopt. The practical consequence: a defendant must build its invalidity case from scratch, but it can choose the forum, the art, and the timing freely. Watch the § 315(b) one-year clock — it runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement, and if Bunker Hill/Dominion Harbor has already served a complaint on you more than a year ago, IPR is off the table and you are in district-court RSA/KSR territory only.

Pattern signals. (1) Same petitioner, repeat player: Toyota filed at least two petitions against Bunker Hill electric-drive patents in Q1–Q2 2026 — a coordinated, family-wide campaign, and petitioner-side Sotera stipulations were filed, which is the standard tactic to defeat Fintiv discretionary denial. (2) Patent Owner posture: Bunker Hill filed a Request for Discretionary Denial in IPR2026-00250 — consistent with an NPE that litigates hard at the institution stage rather than conceding. Expect the same if a petition is ever filed against the '182 patent. (3) Defensive aggregator: I found no Unified Patents IPR on the '182 patent. Unified's public "News & Views" page does indicate it has charted prior art against Bunker Hill patents (identifying Bunker Hill as "an NPE and entity of Dominion Harbor Enterprises"), so a third-party challenge vehicle exists in concept — but nothing filed on this patent. (4) Google Patents' record flags that the family has litigation (Darts-IP link on the patent page), so the '182 patent may be in active assertion somewhere even without a PTAB challenge; that litigation, not the Board, is the likely source of any validity or construction rulings to date.

Assignment caveat (affects who you serve / who controls the IPR). The Google Patents reassignment table is internally inconsistent — it shows a 2025-02-20 transfer to EDISON INNOVATIONS, LLC, two 2025-03-26 transfers involving GE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSING, LLC and DOLBY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSING, LLC, and then a 2026-04-09 quitclaim to BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. Dolby's presence in a GE traction-drive patent record is atypical and suggests the table may be conflating separate reassignment records. Pull the chain from the USPTO Assignment database before you stipulate to a real party in interest or serve a § 315(b)-triggering complaint.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant receiving an assertion on the '182 patent: do not assume the patent is tested. It is not. There is no FWD to cite, no canceled claim to quote, and no estoppel to lean on. Commission an invalidity search now against claims 1, 11, and 18, focusing on pre-2012-12-03 dual-energy-source / dual-motor traction architectures with a geared torque-combining power device (the "one or more gears configured to combine" limitation in claim 1 is the likely weakest link, and it has never been construed by the Board).
2. Calendar the IPR window. Confirm the date you were served with any complaint. If within one year, file or preserve the IPR; if outside, the § 315(b) bar applies and your invalidity case lives in court.
3. Verify the family-adjacent proceedings directly at PTAB E2E / PTAB Center (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/) for IPR2026-00250 and IPR2026-00333. If Bunker Hill has consistently settled Toyota's petitions (as the GreyB data suggests but Docket Alarm contradicts), that is a strong read on its litigation appetite and settlement pricing — but it does not create estoppel or preclusion against a different defendant on a different patent.
4. Confirm the true owner and RPI via USPTO Assignment before any filing that depends on the identity of the Patent Owner.
5. No trial-stage milestones apply — there is no institution decision deadline, no oral hearing, and no statutory 1-year FWD date for this patent, because no trial has been instituted.

Sources

• USPTO PTAB proceedings — ODP structured block provided in task (canonical; zero results for US 9,800,182)
• Patent record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9800182B2/en
• PTAB E2E / PTAB Center (primary source for any proceeding verification): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/
• IPR2026-00250 docket (unverified, different patent): https://sandbox.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00250/Toyota_Motor_Corporation_v._BUNKER_HILL_TECHNOLOGIES_LLC/
• IPR2026-00333 summary (unverified, different patent): https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00333/doc/1006
• Bunker Hill PTAB case list (aggregator, unverified): https://ipverse.greyb.com/competitive-analysis/company/bunker-hill

Nothing in this report has been verified against a primary USPTO document for a proceeding on US 9,800,182, because no such document exists. Where I cite secondary sources, I have labeled them as unverified.

I'll research the assignment records and the entities in the chain before reconstructing the timeline.

Let me pull the assignment-record specifics and check whether this patent is in the Bunker Hill assertion campaign.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 9,800,182 B2 ("Electric drive system and energy management method")

Scope note / data limitation. Google Patents' legal-events reassignment feed for this patent (mirrored from USPTO Assignment Center) exposes the parties, conveyance types and dates below, but it does not expose reel/frame numbers or the correspondent-of-record in the data I was able to retrieve in this session. I have therefore reconstructed the chain from the recorded party/type/date data and the corroborating press, SEC and litigation records, and I have deliberately left reel/frame and correspondent fields blank rather than guess them. Every reel/frame and correspondent entry below is an identified data gap, not a fabricated value. Verify at the Assignment Center search for US 9,800,182: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

Inventors

• All five are named on the face of US 2014/0152225 A1 / US 9,800,182 B2, and the assignee-of-record at filing was General Electric Co, so all five are presumptively GE employees at the 2013-12-02 filing. The subject matter (dual-ESS + dual-AC-machine traction architecture with a torque-distribution/EMS layer) is consistent with GE's power-electronics and controls research organizations.
• Pattern note: I could not verify any post-filing departures of these inventors within 12 months of filing. Individual personnel movements are not captured in the assignment record and I found no evidence of a "mass exodus" preceding the divestiture. The "unusual pattern" flag here is not inventor attrition — it is that the original assignee held the patent for ~8 years and then divested it as part of a bulk corporate licensing-portfolio sale, which is discussed under NPE signals.

Original assignee

General Electric Company (assignee of record; the application was filed 2013-12-02 and the patent issued 2017-10-24).

• Primary line of business: diversified industrial/technology conglomerate — power generation, aviation, healthcare, and (relevant here) industrial drives, power conversion and traction systems. The claimed subject matter (dual energy-storage units, dual AC drive devices, power split device, torque distribution) is general-purpose EV/industrial-traction architecture, not a GE-branded end product.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear / no evidence found. The specification frames the invention as applicable to EV, elevator, forklift and crane propulsion systems (see FIG. 1 discussion), which maps to GE's industrial-equipment exposure — but I found no evidence of a GE commercial product practicing the claims of US 9,800,182. I am explicitly not asserting one existed.
• Current status: GE is operating (post-2023/24 breakup into GE Aerospace, GE Vernova and GE HealthCare). Critically, GE's patent-licensing arm no longer belongs to GE: GE Licensing — including the equity interests of GE Intellectual Property Licensing, LLC and GE Technology Development, Inc. — was sold to Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: DLB) for $429 million all-cash (agreement announced 2024-06-06; closed FY2024; ~5,000 patents). GE Aerospace retained aerospace/defense IP and the GE brand marks.
• Current assignee of this patent: Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC (per the patent's reassignment record and Google Patents "Current Assignee" field).

Assignment timeline

There are four recorded post-issuance conveyances in the public reassignment feed. Because the feed did not expose reel/frame or correspondent in this session, those fields are marked [not retrieved — do not cite as absent].

• Executed/effective ~2025-02-19/20; recorded 2025-02-20 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Dolby Intellectual Property Licensing, LLC
  • Assignee: Edison Innovations, LLC (a Dominion Harbor Enterprises / Dominion Harbor Group company, Dallas, TX)
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved — flag as unknown]
  • Context: Bulk portfolio fire-sale to a monetization entity — Edison Innovations announced on 2025-02-19 that it acquired 2,500+ patent assets from Dolby, comprising the GE Licensing assets Dolby had "held for sale," covering EV powertrain/energy storage, batteries, display, MEMS, wireless power, 5G and medical. This patent is one asset in that bulk lot.

• Executed/effective 2025-03-26 (or recorded 2025-03-26) — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST") — internal reorg step
  • Assignor: General Electric Company
  • Assignee: GE Intellectual Property Licensing, LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization — consolidation of GE's patent assets into its dedicated IP-holding/licensing subsidiary in connection with the GE Licensing carve-out.

• Executed/effective 2025-03-26 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Change of Name — recorded as "CHANGE OF NAME"
  • Assignor: GE Intellectual Property Licensing, LLC
  • Assignee: Dolby Intellectual Property Licensing, LLC
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Change of name only — the acquired GE licensing entity was renamed under Dolby ownership. (This is the mechanical step that gives Dolby record title from the Sept-2024 close; it appears in the feed after the Edison record because recording lagged, see anomaly note below.)

• Recorded 2026-04-09 — Reel [not retrieved]

  • Conveyance: Assignment — recorded as "QUITCLAIM ASSIGNMENT"
  • Assignor: Edison Innovations, LLC
  • Assignee: Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC (described by Unified Patents as "an NPE and entity of Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC")
  • Correspondent: [not retrieved]
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter / internal monetization-vehicle reallocation — same ultimate parent (Dominion Harbor) as the assignor; the receiving entity was, by this date, running an active EV-patent assertion campaign against automakers.

Anomaly worth flagging: the feed lists the Dolby→Edison assignment (2025-02-20) before the GE→GE IP Licensing and GE IP Licensing→Dolby name-change records (both 2025-03-26). The logical chain is GE → GE IP Licensing → Dolby IP Licensing → Edison Innovations → Bunker Hill; the apparent ordering inversion is a recording-lag artifact, not a gap in the chain. I flag this rather than smoothing it over.

Family continuity (why this chain matters): this patent is the parent of continuations US 10,291,158, US 10,374,529 and US 11,374,508 (all claiming the 2012-12-03 priority date). Those exact continuations appear in Bunker Hill Technologies' infringement suit against Toyota (2:25-cv-01133, E.D. Tex., filed 2025-11-18) and related campaigns against Ford, Nissan and Volvo. So even though I did not find US 9,800,182 itself named in a complaint, its child patents are being asserted in the same campaign to which this patent was transferred.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9800182
    2012 : Priority application filed by GE
    2013 : US application filed by General Electric
    2017 : Patent issued to General Electric
    2024 : Dolby buys GE Licensing for 429M
    2025 : GE assigns to GE IP Licensing LLC
         : Name change to Dolby IP Licensing LLC
         : Dolby sells 2500 assets to Edison
    2026 : Quitclaim to Bunker Hill Technologies
         : Bunker Hill sues Ford Toyota Nissan

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. The patent left an operating industrial (GE) and passed to Edison Innovations, LLC, a licensing-only Dominion Harbor subsidiary, then on 2026-04-09 to Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC, which Unified Patents explicitly labels an NPE and entity of Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC. Both downstream assignees are single-purpose licensing/assertion vehicles with no products in commerce; Edison Innovations positions itself purely as a "leading licensor," and Bunker Hill exists only as a litigating patent plaintiff. This is not inferred from naming alone — it is corroborated by Unified Patents' characterization and by the public litigation record (see signal 2).

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC is a high-frequency plaintiff: trackers show roughly 6 active cases and ~126 patents, all in E.D. Tex., filed against Ford (2:25-cv-01116, 2025-11-10), Toyota (2:25-cv-01133, 2025-11-18), Nissan (2:26-cv-00230, 2026-03-20) and Volvo/Polestar (2:26-cv-00742). Unified Patents describes it in terms exactly on point: "Bunker Hill Technologies, an NPE and entity of Dominion Harbor Enterprises." The chain's prior assignee, Edison Innovations, LLC, is likewise a Dominion Harbor company. This is decisive for the verdict and does not depend on the LLC names.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (data gap, not a finding). The correspondent-of-record for each of the four conveyances was not retrievable in this session, so I cannot test the "same attorney files every link" hypothesis. I explicitly decline to name any attorney or firm, because doing so without the recorded correspondent field would be fabrication. Recommended next step: pull the correspondent field for each reel/ frame at the Assignment Center and cross-check the recurring recorder against Unified Patents' NPE counsel lists (note: in the litigation, Bunker Hill is represented by Nelson Bumgardner Conroy — Patrick J. Conroy et al. — and Unified's reexam counsel is Erise IP, but neither is evidence about the recording correspondent).

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT. Four recorded conveyances move the asset General Electric → GE IP Licensing LLC → Dolby IP Licensing LLC (name change) → Edison Innovations LLC → Bunker Hill Technologies LLC across roughly 14 months (Feb-2025 → Apr-2026). The final two assignees share an ultimate parent (Dominion Harbor), i.e. the asset is being shuffled between affiliated vehicles after the portfolio-level purchase.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (as to the campaign; qualified as to this patent). Bunker Hill acquired the asset by quitclaim on 2026-04-09, after it had already launched its automaker suits in Nov-2025, and continued filing (Nissan 2026-03-20, Volvo 2026-03-24/26). The transfer sits squarely inside an active assertion campaign. Qualification: I found no complaint naming US 9,800,182 itself; the asserted family members are its continuations ('158, '529 and '508). So the signal is strong at the family/chain level and unconfirmed at the single-patent level.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11. GE's divestiture of GE Licensing to Dolby was a $429M all-cash strategic sale closing in FY2024, and Dolby's onward sale to Dominion Harbor/Edison was a deliberate "held for sale" monetization of acquired assets — not a distressed estate sale. This is a strategic rationalization + monetization, not insolvency.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR. Dolby is an operating licensor that, rather than asserting these GE assets itself, sold 2,500 of them to a Dominion Harbor vehicle whose stated next step was "immediate rollout of licensing opportunities." That is a sale-to-monetizer pattern. I do not see evidence of Dolby directing or funding assertions against its competitors (classic privateering), nor SEC/EFF/Patent Progress coverage alleging it, so I cannot call this privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN. To the contrary, Unified Patents is challenging Bunker Hill's EV patents (e.g. ex parte reexam against US 9,914,365 filed 2026-03-27; CRU granted on 2026-06-01; prior-art charts released against US 9,821,668, 9,975,439, 10,291,158, 10,374,529 and 10,604,023). The patent family is being attacked, not neutralized defensively.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two or more strong signals are independently documented: (i) a shell/licensing-entity transfer of the asset out of General Electric into Edison Innovations, LLC (a Dominion Harbor company) and then by quitclaim recorded 2026-04-09 to Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC, which Unified Patents expressly identifies as "an NPE and entity of Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC"; and (ii) a known asserter in the chain running an active E.D. Tex. campaign (Ford 2:25-cv-01116, Toyota 2:25-cv-01133, Nissan 2:26-cv-00230, Volvo 2:26-cv-00742) that asserts this patent's continuations — US 10,291,158, US 10,374,529 and US 11,374,508 — even though I did not find the '182 patent itself named. The cascade of four conveyances in ~14 months (Feb-2025 → Apr-2026), with the final two assignees sharing a Dominion Harbor parent, satisfies the cascade and pre-litigation-transfer factors as well. The chain is not defensive aggregation and not an operating-company assertion.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search US 9,800,182) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — retrieve the reel/frame and correspondent fields for each of the four records, which are the two data points I could not confirm here and which would let signal 3 (repeat correspondent) be resolved either way.

I'll research US patent 9800182 and its prior art citations. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into the specific citation records for this patent.

Let me search for the specific citation records on the patent's front page.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,800,182 B2

1. Confirmation of the Subject Patent (interpreted literally)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9800182B2](/patent/US9800182B2)/en

2. Important Methodology Caveat (read before using the analysis)

I was unable to retrieve the authoritative "References Cited" / "Patent Citations" front-page list for US 9,800,182 itself. My searches returned the Google Patents page (classifications, abstract, description, claims) and several search-report documents, but not the examiner/applicant citation list for this specific patent. Under the strict rule against fabricating identifiers or citations, I will not invent a citation list.

What follows is therefore divided into two clearly labeled evidence classes:

• (A) Confirmed — facts returned by search.
• (B) Citation-network candidates — documents that appear in US 9,800,182's citation graph (reverse "Cited By" tables on other patents' pages). These are candidates, not a verified "References Cited" list, and dates must be re-checked for §102 purposes.

Where I say "potentially anticipates," that is an analytical hypothesis tied to specific claim language — it is not a verified examiner finding.

3. Category A — Confirmed Bibliographic Facts

• US 9,800,182 B2 granted 2017-10-24; family priority 2012-12-03. (Google Patents, URL above)
• The patent is one of five continuation applications in Family ID 49765292. (Google Patents)
• A "Family has litigation" flag with a first worldwide family litigation record is listed via Darts-IP: https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=49765292

Anything dated after 2012-12-03 that is not a US application filed before that date is not §102 prior art (it could only matter for §102(a)(2)/§102(e) if filed before the critical date, or for obviousness-adjacent context).

4. Category B — Citation-Network Candidates (Prior-Art Candidates)

These appeared in "Cited By"-style tables on other patents' Google Patents pages that include US 9,800,182 B2 (and its GE family members). They are the most likely prior-art references of interest, pending verification against the actual front page.

B1. US 8,415,909 B2 — "Power control on a multi-motion electric drive system"

• Full citation: US 8,415,909 B2; App. US 12/765,008; filed 2010-04-22; granted 2013-04-09.
• Why relevant: A multi-motor electric drive with power-control allocation is directly on point for a dual-AC-drive architecture. The US 8,415,909 page lists US 9,800,182 B2 in a citation table, indicating a cross-reference relationship. (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8415909B2](/patent/US8415909B2)/en)
• Potential §102 relevance: Most plausibly directed at claim 1 (plural AC drive devices + EMS issuing control signals) and claim 11 (enabling AC drive devices / sending power control signals). Anticipation would require it to disclose the ESS with first and second storage units and the transmission-device/power-device gearing of granted claim 1. My searches did not return the full text, so I cannot confirm it discloses the gear-based torque-combining element; treat this as unverified.

B2. US 2009/0224720 A1 — "AC voltage output apparatus and hybrid vehicle including the same"

• Full citation: US 2009/0224720 A1; prepublished 2009-09-10; thus before the 2012-12-03 priority date.
• Why relevant: The US 2009/0224720 A1 page shows a citation table containing the entire GE family (US 9,800,182 B2; US 11,374,508 B2; US 10,374,529 B2; US 2017/0366112 A1; US 10,673,358 B2; US 2014/0152225 A1), indicating the GE family cites this reference. (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090224720A1/en)
• Potential §102 relevance: Charging/AC-output and hybrid-vehicle inverter topologies map to claim 1 (power conversion system coupled to ESS) and claim 5/6 (parallel or series power-conversion devices). Again, gear/transmission limitations in granted claims 1, 8, 9 would likely remain unmet.

B3. US 7,723,932 (title not returned in my searches)

• Full citation: US 7,723,932; the US 7,723,932 page displays US 9,800,182 B2 in its citation table (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7723932/en).
• Why relevant: Appears in the same citation network; likely an inverter/motor-drive reference. Title, dates, and content unverified in my searches — do not cite without confirmation.

B4. US 2013/0220164 A1 — "Propulsion system" (Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.)

• Full citation: US 2013/0220164 A1; filed 2012-02-24; published 2013-08-29.
• Why relevant: Appears in a citation table containing US 9,800,182 B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3198063](/patent/US3198063)... — surfaced via the US 7,723,932 result set).
• §102 timing caveat: Published after the 2012-12-03 priority date. It could only qualify as prior art under §102(a)(2)/§102(e) if its underlying US filing (2012-02-24) predates the critical date — which it does. So it is a §102(e) candidate, not a §102(a)(1)/publication candidate.
• Potential relevance: Propulsion-system architecture with multiple drive devices → claim 1 / claim 18.

B5. Chinese family member — CN 103847530 B

• Full citation: CN 103847530 B; priority 2012-12-03; family member of US 14/094,086.
• Note: This is the same invention, not prior art. It is listed only because it is the CN counterpart (and may carry a CN examination search report useful for finding third-party prior art).

5. Documents I Explicitly Did NOT Verify (avoid treating as §102 art)

Search returned several search reports — but they belong to unrelated applications, not to US 9,800,182:

• EP 3814197 A4 supplementary search report (LIT Motors / steering references).
• EP 3950400 A4 supplementary search report (Efficient Drivetrains, Noel, etc.).
• WO 2014/085098 A1, WO 2017/112603 A1, WO 2019/125419 A1, WO 2022/233870 A1, WO 2015/047989 A1 search reports.

None of these is confirmed as a search report or citation of US 9,800,182. I flag them only to note the risk of conflating unrelated search reports with this patent's prosecution history.

6. §102 Anticipation Framework Applied to the Granted Claims

To anticipate, a single reference must disclose every element. The granted claims contain two elements that are unusual and are the likely loci of novelty:

1. Granted claim 1 / claim 18 — the mechanical "power device" with "one or more gears."

   • Claim 1 requires a transmission device coupled to the first AC drive device and a power device comprising one or more gears configured to combine the third mechanical torque and second mechanical torque into a fourth mechanical torque delivered to a load.
   • Claim 18 requires a power device configured to split the first mechanical torque into second and third mechanical torques.
   • Claim 8 adds the split function; claim 9 adds regenerative charging via the split torques.

2. Granted claim 11 — method including split-torque regenerative charging.

   • Converting ESS electric power into a first mechanical torque, splitting it into second and third torques, providing the second torque to the second AC drive device to charge the second energy storage unit, and providing the third torque to the load.

Consequence for prior-art mapping: References that merely show two motors + two energy sources + a controller (the general subject matter of B1–B4) would likely not anticipate claim 1 or claim 18, because they would need to also disclose the gear-based torque-combining/splitting power device coupling the two drives to a single load. Under §102, the strongest potential hits would be references disclosing a planetary/gear power-split between two electric machines (e.g., power-split hybrid architectures), which I did not confirm in the retrieved material. If no such single reference exists, the more realistic attack on this patent is §103 (combination of a dual-motor drive reference + a power-split gear reference), not §102.

• Which claims are most exposed to §102: claims 4, 5, 6, 7 (power-conversion-device and IM/IPM + DC/AC inverter limitations) and claim 15/16 (operating-mode logic: starting, accelerating, cruising, braking, fault-tolerant) are the broadest and most likely to read on a single drive-system reference.
• Which claims are least exposed: claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19 — because of the explicit gear/power-split-torque limitations.

7. Bottom Line

• The subject patent is confirmed as US 9,800,182 B2 (GE, filed 2013-12-02, priority 2012-12-03).
• I could not retrieve US 9,800,182's official front-page "References Cited" list, so I cannot give you a verified, per-reference §102 mapping as the task requests. I will not fabricate one.
• The strongest candidate prior-art references (from the patent's citation network) are US 8,415,909 B2, US 2009/0224720 A1, US 7,723,932, and US 2013/0220164 A1, with the last qualifying only as a §102(e) reference.
• Given the unusual gear-based torque-combining/splitting limitations in granted claims 1, 18 and the split-torque charging in claim 11, the realistic challenge is §103, not §102, unless a single reference is found disclosing a two-machine gear power-split feeding one load.

To complete a rigorous §102 analysis, retrieve the actual citation list from:

• USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter for US 14/094,086 (front page "References Cited" and the "Notice of References Cited" / PTO-892 forms), and
• The file wrapper (IFW) for US 14/094,086 to capture examiner-cited art that may differ from applicant-cited art.

If you can supply the front-page citation list (or the IFW), I will produce the exact per-reference §102 mapping — with claim-by-claim element comparison — that this task calls for.

I'll research the prior art references associated with this patent before building the obviousness analysis.

The PCT search report for this family (PCT/US2013/073037) is the key prior-art source. Let me verify the family link and pull the cited references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,800,182 B2 ("Electric Drive System and Energy Management Method")

Analyst note on sources (read first). You asked me to work from the "Prior Art" section of the page. The Google Patents page as fetched (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9800182/en) provides prior‑art keywords ("power," "drive device," "mechanical torque," "energy storage," "power conversion") but no enumerated reference list. I therefore grounded this analysis on (a) related GE family documents surfaced on that page, and (b) the publicly posted invalidity chart for sibling patent US 10,374,529 B2 (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/s/BunkerHill_US10374529_invalidity-chart.pdf), which shares the 2012‑12‑03 priority and the same specification. Caveat: that chart maps references to US 10,374,529's claims, not US 9,800,182's; the mapping below to US 9,800,182 is my inference and should be verified against full reference texts.

I also want to correct one likely mis-citation up front: an International Search Report I retrieved under PCT/US2013/073037 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f5/1f/af/34927167e2779a/WO2014089168A1.pdf) cites US 2012/0040210 (Hermann), US 2009/0249802 and US 2010/0012295 (Newesh), and US 2011/0318626 (Bartenschlager) as "X" art against claims 1–19. That ISR belongs to WO 2014/089168 A1, "Immersion tolerant energy storage system" (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014089168A1/en) — a different application. Those references are not prior art of record for US 9,800,182 and I have not used them.

I. Scope and legal framework

PHOSITA: a bachelor's degree in electrical or mechanical engineering and ~3–5 years' experience in EV powertrain, traction motor drives, and DC power conversion (or a master's with less experience), familiar with traction inverters, bi‑directional DC‑DC converters, battery/ultracapacitor hybrid energy storage, and hybrid/EVP energy‑management controls.

II. Prior art available against US 9,800,182

⚠️ § 102(b)(2)(C) trap. US 9,013,168, US 8,653,696/US 9,620,974 and other GE documents are, on their face, § 102(a)(2)-only art. Because the subject matter disclosed and US 9,800,182's claimed invention were both owned by General Electric Company as of 2012‑12‑03, the common‑ownership exception of § 102(b)(2)(C) plausibly disqualifies them as prior art — including for § 103, since § 103(a) takes "prior art" as defined in § 102. A robust § 103 challenge should therefore be anchored on § 102(a)(1) art (e.g., US 2012/0019172 A1, US 2011/0227534 A1, EP 2 179 882), with GE's own later filings used only as corroborating evidence of the state of the art (e.g., as objective evidence of what a PHOSITA would have known), not as statutory art.

III. Claim‑construction notes (affect the mappings)

1. Claim 1 recites a "power device" (not the specification's "power split device 19") comprising "one or more gears" that combine a third mechanical torque (out of the transmission device on the first drive device) and the second mechanical torque into a fourth torque to the load. No "vehicle" is recited in claim 1 (only claim 10 does); the load is generic.
2. Claim 1's architecture is asymmetric: transmission is on the first AC drive device only, and the power device sits downstream of both the transmission and the second AC drive device. Claim 8 adds the reverse (splitting) mode; claim 18 recites splitting only.
3. Claim 10 refers to "the first and second AC motors" while depending from claim 1, which recites no "motor" — a § 112(b) antecedent‑basis weakness worth noting; it must be read in light of claim 7.
4. Claim 11 does not recite the terminal structure of the specification's power conversion device ("receiving or providing at least one input power … at least one output power"), so the claim is broader than the description and easier to meet.

IV. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Claim 1 (and 4–6, 8, 9): US 2011/0227534 A1 in view of US 2012/0019172 A1

US 2011/0227534 A1 discloses: plural power storage devices 10‑1…10‑3 (→ first and second energy storage units) coupled through converters 12‑1/12‑2 and relays 11‑1…11‑3 (→ power conversion system coupled to the ESS; and, for claims 4–6, separate parallel conversion devices); motor‑generators 32‑1 and 32‑2 (→ first and second AC drive devices providing/receiving first and second mechanical torques); a power split device 34 comprising a planetary gear set with the ring gear coupled to MG 32‑2 and driving wheel 38 (→ a power device comprising one or more gears that combines mechanical torques and outputs to a load); and a hybrid controller (→ EMS in communication with the ESS, traction system, and power conversion system).

US 2012/0019172 A1 supplies the missing asymmetric arrangement and the AC-drive specifics: two AC induction motors with motor drive circuitry responsive to control signals 32 from control logic 30, with motor 146 coupled to the "drive shaft" main port and motor 144 coupled to a wheel path, and operation in which one motor delivers mechanical output while the other regenerates with the electrical output captured and stored. A PHOSITA applying that teaching to the Toyota‑type layout — placing a transmission/drive on the first machine and having the gearing combine the first machine's transmitted torque with the second machine's torque — arrives at claim 1.

De facto, claim 1 recites a combination of known elements (two ESS units + two motor drives + gearing that sums two torque inputs) each performing its known function, with predictable results (KSR, element‑by‑element predictable combination; In re Japikse rearrangement of parts).

Ground 2 — Claims 18 and 19: same combination

Claim 18 is broader than claim 1 (a "plurality" of ESS units; a power device "configured for splitting the first mechanical torque into the second and third mechanical torques"; no transmission clause, no torque‑combining clause). Mechanical power‑split architectures (planetary sets splitting one input between two electric machines) are the textbook arrangement of US 2011/0227534 A1's power split device 34 and are ubiquitous in the hybrid‑EV art; combining that with plural storage units and a controller is the same KSR combination. Claim 19 merely claims the reverse (combining) operation of the same gearing — a mere reversal of power flow through a bidirectional mechanical device, an obvious design choice given that the reference systems are explicitly bidirectional (MG 32‑1/32‑2 operate as motors or generators).

Ground 3 — Claim 11 (and 15–17): US 2012/0019172 A1 in view of US 2011/0227534 A1

The heart of claim 11 is: convert ESS power to a first mechanical torque (first AC drive device) → split that torque → provide the second portion to the second AC drive device to generate electricity for charging the second ESS unit → provide the third portion to the load.

• US 2012/0019172 A1 expressly teaches the operative concept: one motor producing mechanical output while the second operates as a generator "such that it works as a generator, which presents as a load to the first motor," with the generator output "captured and stored in an energy storage mechanism, such as a rechargeable battery." That is the split‑torque / one‑machine‑charges‑storage step.
• US 2011/0227534 A1 supplies the two distinct storage units (10‑1…10‑3, each on its own converter) so that the regenerated energy can be routed to the second unit specifically, plus the planetary power split that mechanically divides the first machine's torque.
• Claims 15–16 (mode determination — starting, accelerating, cruising, braking, fault‑tolerance; and mode‑specific device enabling) are routine control law: operating an EV differently in start/accel/cruise/brake, and limp‑home/fault‑tolerant reconfiguration of a drive with redundant machines and storage, were well known. The specification itself describes these modes as conventional classifications and the fault‑tolerate mode as simply reconfiguring "normal parts."
• Claim 17 (second ESS unit as "assistant" supplying additional power) merely claims the recognized reason hybrid ESS architectures exist: the high‑specific‑power device buffers transient demand the high‑specific‑energy device cannot meet (the very rationale recited in US 9,800,182's own Background).

Ground 4 — Claims 12–14: torque distribution with an efficiency map

Claim 12 (torque distribution unit emitting first/second torque commands) and claim 13 (look‑up table defining high‑efficiency areas of the two motors from their efficiency maps to minimize total loss) are control optimizations. Given two machines of different torque‑speed character (exactly what US 2011/0227534 A1 and US 2012/0019172 A1 present), splitting demanded torque to keep both machines in their efficient regions is the inevitable design objective, and implementing it with a look‑up table derived from each machine's published efficiency map is routine engineering — "the product … not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" (KSR). Claim 14 (transmission changes the first machine's operating point) is the ordinary purpose of a transmission and is doubly suggested by US 2011/0227534 A1's geared coupling.

Ground 5 — Claims 2, 3 and 10

• Claims 2–3: a pre‑charging switching device between two DC storage units, and a unidirectional element (diode/thyristor/relay‑resistor network), is standard EV practice — pre‑charging a capacitor bank or second storage unit from the main pack through a current‑limited unidirectional path. EP 2 179 882 (GE) shows coupling systems that conditionally transfer energy from a source to an energy storage device; the addition is a known safety/inrush technique applied in the same field.
• Claim 10: the two alternative EMS behaviors (both machines motor the load; or one motors while the other generates) are literally taught by US 2012/0019172 A1's passage quoted above (motor 146 driving while motor 144 regenerates), so claim 10 adds nothing beyond the primary reference plus a routine controller.

V. Why a PHOSITA would have combined these references

1. Same field, same problem, finite solutions. All references address EV/hybrid powertrain energy management. The two identified solutions to the problem stated in US 9,800,182's own Background ("a single ESS may not satisfy both the energy and power requirements … a single motor may not work with high efficiency across the entire operating range") were, in 2012, dual storage and multiple traction machines. KSR: combination of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
2. Explicit functional suggestion in the art. US 2012/0019172 A1 states the operative concept (one machine generating to load the other and charging storage) and US 2011/0227534 A1 provides both the plural storage units and the mechanical power‑split gearing — the two references together suggest the very architecture claimed.
3. Predictable, verified results. Summing two torque inputs through a gear device and storing regenerated energy in a second storage unit yields the expected results (torque addition, energy buffering) with no change in the principle of operation of any element. KSR predictable combination; In re Japikse.
4. Market/design pressure. Range, cost, battery life, and acceleration targets for EVs supplied a design incentive to pair a high‑energy battery with a high‑power device and to add a second machine for the torque peaks; both references reflect that same incentive.
5. Design choice / obvious to try. Even if one starts from a single‑motor, dual‑storage system, adding a second machine with its own inverter and coupling it through gearing is a design choice from a small set of known options, and combining the machines' gearing is a mechanical arrangement readily within the skill of the artisan.

VI. Where the case is weak / expected rebuttals

• Common ownership (§ 102(b)(2)(C)) knocks out GE's post‑2012 § 102(a)(2) art (US 9,013,168; US 9,620,974 family). The case must lead with § 102(a)(1) references (US 2012/0019172 A1; US 2011/0227534 A1; EP 2 179 882) or non‑GE/non‑commonly‑owned art.
• Priority (§ 102(d)). If the claim‑1 "transmission device"/"power device" arrangement (or claim 11's split‑and‑charge‑second‑unit sequence) is not supported by CN 201210509493.2, the effective date shifts to 2013‑12‑02, which enlarges the pool of § 102(a)(1) art (including any 2013 publications) and strengthens the challenge. Verify the CN priority disclosure.
• Missing express disclosures. Neither charted reference expressly discloses (i) a transmission device interposed on only the first AC drive device, nor (ii) a pre‑charging switching device between two storage units. These are the limitations that require a genuine motivation‑to‑combine argument; secondary references should be located for them rather than relying on "design choice."
• Secondary considerations. No evidence of unexpected results, industry praise, or licensing appears in the record; commercial success by GE in the relevant market would need a demonstrated nexus to the claimed combination, which is difficult given the crowded field. The 2025–2026 reassignment chain to Bunker Hill Technologies LLC (quitclaim from Edison Innovations LLC) indicates assertion activity, so expect a well‑funded validity defense.
• Faithfulness caveat. The Unified Patents chart is directed to US 10,374,529's claims. Before filing anything, confirm each quoted passage in the full text of US 2012/0019172 A1 and US 2011/0227534 A1 and re‑map to US 9,800,182's claim language.

VII. Bottom line

Confidence: high on the identity, dates, and statutory roles of US 2012/0019172 A1, US 2011/0227534 A1, EP 2 179 882, US 9,013,168 and the § 102(b)(2)(C) ownership issue; low‑to‑moderate on the completeness of the prior‑art set, because the Google Patents page as fetched did not expose US 9,800,182's own "References Cited" list. If you can supply that list (or the file wrapper's Form PTO‑892 / the CN 103847530 B search report), I can re‑run the mapping against the actual art of record and against the CN family's examination citations.